The conversation centers on the rise and impact of "woke" culture, framed as a modern authoritarian movement that uses language of inclusivity and kindness to justify censorship and punitive measures against dissent. The speakers argue that this has led to a suppression of free speech, particularly in the UK, where hate speech laws have resulted in thousands of arrests for social media content considered offensive, such as memes or tweets. They contrast this with the United States, where the First Amendment and legal standards like the Brandenburg test provide stronger protections for speech, requiring imminent incitement to violence for prosecution. Examples cited include arrests for retweeting a meme comparing pride flags to a swastika and a woman imprisoned for a deleted tweet during riots. The dialogue warns against the dangers of equating speech with violence and emphasizes vigilance to preserve free expression, noting that authoritarian tendencies can emerge from any political direction.
(drum beat) - Joe Rogan, what are you guys checking out? - The Joe Rogan Experience. - Shrink my day, Joe Rogan Park, ask my night all day. (upbeat music) - Yes. - And Drew. - Hello. - Good to see you brother. - Good to see you, Drew. - It has been, you said, six years almost to the day. - Almost to the last time. - So lots changed. - Right before everything went crazy. - That's it. - Right before. - Yeah, the whole world so shit. - 'Cause everything went cookie around March, right? - Yeah, so it was February 2020 and then we have COVID and then we have, you know, we've had Trump in between of that, we have BLM, that's summer of 2020, everything just exploded when it happened. - Yeah. - Yeah, and then everything shifted. - So then you wrote a book. - Right, but it's called The End of Woke, how the culture war went too far and what to expect from the counter revolution. Isn't that how it always goes though? It goes like we go too far and then we over-correct, and we become Nazis. - Yeah. - That's it, exactly. - Well, you know, it's the opposite. We go socialist. - Yeah, it's a big pendulum. I get that, so it goes back and forth. I mean, I was trying to, in that book, I'm trying to make the point that what woke was was like a kind of the latest manifestation of a kind of innate authoritarian impulse. I think human beings are by default quite inclined towards just shutting people up if they don't like them. - Yeah. - Just imposing their authority. And so woke, well, I mean, a lot of people are annoyed that have called it The End of Woke. I'm not saying it's all over, let's just go home, forget about it. It's still going on. But the point about it is that in its current manifestation, things are changing now so rapidly. We are moving into some sort of new phase. And that authoritarianism, which we've associated with the left, might come up from the right. It could come up from anywhere. It's what you say about the pendulum. So you just have to be kind of vigilant about it. I don't think we were vigilant. I think that's why woke happened. We weren't vigilant against this prospect that, you know, authoritarianism could emerge in what we thought was a free society. - Well, authoritarianism, it's snuck in through a sheep costume. You know, it was in a sheep's costume. - Yeah, it was a costume of being more inclusive, being more open-minded, being a better society, being kinder, you know, led to child trans surgeries, led to chaos, it led to like a lot of like really fucking freaky things that you would have never expected. People saying that the first amendment's not important. It's more important as protecting people. - Well, that was the key, wasn't it? The point was that the way it worked was that it was gullying people through language that sounded pretty sweet and kittenish and fluffy. You know, things like equity, well, that sounds a lot like equality, doesn't it? - Right. - But it doesn't mean equality. It means treating people unequally to ensure equal outcomes are calling to group identity. That's a very different thing. You say you're talking about, let's make everything inclusive. But what you really mean is let's exclude anyone who disagrees with what we've got to say. So you're using language to mean the exact opposite. They say gender affirming care. Do they mean that? Or do they mean affirming what is effectively a pseudo-scientific belief among vulnerable people? So it's all about misusing language because most people I think, or I like to think, are pretty decent. Most people want to be kind, want to be fair. And when you hear these activists saying, be kind, be compassionate, or else. Right? - Yeah. - You kind of think, okay, well, maybe their intentions are good, but also they're pretty scary. I mean, there's a weird thing with the woke thing, which was that on the one hand, it proclaimed to be this sort of great virtuous, kind, progressive, right side of history. How often did you hear that phrase? - Right. - And at the same time, they're like dangerous dogs. Like, I'll better not piss them off. I better not say the wrong thing, the workplace, 'cause they'll destroy you. - Well, I always find that the most preposterous, the idea is, and the least capable it is to stand up to scrutiny, the more violent the enforcement of that idea will be. Because you cannot combat that. You can't defend that idea with logic, so you have to defend it with fear and force. And just shouting people down, and that's what we saw. And that's, it's a natural impulse of human beings. - Absolutely. - When you're arguing with a kid, you know, when you're a kid and you're arguing with a kid, and you say something, you don't even know you. You should the fuck up. - Yeah. - Just to start scaring you. - So why is it though that some countries and some societies seem to protect themselves better than others against that impulse? And I feel at the moment that the UK is kind of failing where America is to a degree succeed, not in obviously in all ways, but when it comes to the idea of freedom and free speech. Like, I think UK is pretty far as pretty fallen to the kind of the woke insistence that you need to control people's language so that you can create this perfect society which can never come anyways, just you can't. - Well, I think it's been co-opted. I think whatever organic version of that emerges naturally from society where people, where there's an over correction, I think in the UK, because you guys don't have free speech laws, 'cause it's just different over there. You can get away with a lot of crazy shit. Like, first of all, like we should explain what we're talking about. More than 12,000 people have been arrested in the UK in the past year for social media posts. And if you read some of those social media posts, they're not even remotely terrifying. It's not like I'm going to grab a knife and go cut the head off of every immigrant I see. Like, hey buddy, maybe we should lock this guy up and evaluate him. He sounds like a crazy person. Like, no, the immigrants are coming into this fucking country and creating all this crime. Knock on the door, you're going to jail. - I worry that Americans think we're mad. - Sometimes I think we do. - Yeah, do you? - We do now, yeah, we think you've lost it. - Yeah. - We also think something happened where your leaders are intentionally trying to tank your country. It seems like they're trying to bring in as many migrants as possible, cater to them, not to the British people, and do it openly, so that everyone knows what they're doing and then create chaos on the streets because of it. - Yeah, I mean, people have a phrase to that. Anaka tyranny, you know, where you punish people who aren't breaking the law, but you protect those who are. And I think with the, I mean, I don't know the extent that Americans know the, I mean, the stat you quoted, that came from the Times newspaper in London, which had a freedom information request to the police, found out that it's 12,000 a year on average. So that's like 30 a day, not just being investigated or looked into, but being arrested. - But over the last few years, only, if you go back, it's only like a thousand or 500. - It was, it could, it was 3,000 last time we spoke back in 2023. - Was it really a year? - Back then? - Yeah. - Oh my God. - So we already had that problem. - And we already know that many, that's crazy even back then. - It was already really high. I mean, we had stuff like, the old stories of like, there was that guy in 2010 who made a joke online about, he was at Donkaster Airport in the UK. He said, "Oh, if this queue doesn't hurry up, I'm gonna blow up the airport." Just a stupid funny tweet. He went all the way to court, that was a full trial. Oh, so these, these laws, and I think what happens with this stuff is, people don't realize how long this has been embedded in the UK. We have hate speech laws that are encoded in a number of different legislations. We have a thing called the Public Order Act, we have a thing called Militius Communications Act, that's from 1988. We have Communications Act from 2003. And all of these things criminalize, I tell you, I kid you not. The language in these statute books is, if it's grossly offensive, that's the phrase. If you post something that is grossly offensive, you can go to court, you can be prosecuted. But I find, well that's it, what does that even mean? I find laws against free speech to be grossly offensive. So should the British state be arrested? I don't know. And there's one, I think it's in the Militius Communications Act where it talks about needless anxiety, causing needless anxiety can get you arrested. And you think that's not a thing. And give you a specific example of that. - This one's gross. - I have once, my friend Winston Marshall, I worry that if I try it, I'll cough, and I'll look really whimpish and pathetic. - It will be good for your anger. - It will backfire. I tell you, I'll undermine everything. It'd be like I'm sitting here with a paper hat on, a Christmas, undermining all of my key points. - Right. - I like the flavor and I like being around smokers, 'cause my grandmother used to chain smoke around me. So it's kind of, what's she's Northern Irish? You know, it's the way they do. She used to give me whiskey when I was three to calm me down, you know. - Oh wow. - It's that sort of family. - That's an old thing they used to do with kids. - They did. - They put it in their babies, they put it in their mouth. - It will. - Like they would dip their finger and whiskey and rub it on the inside of a kid's mouth. - If you're struggling with the child, get it drunk. That's how you, it's old Northern Irish wisdom. I don't think you should scoff at it. It's a good thing. But I'll be more than half grossly offensive. - It's grossly offensive. (laughing) - The example I was gonna give was this guy called Darren Brady. And this sounds made up, and whenever I tell people this sounds made up, he posted a meme. I don't know if you saw this meme where it was the four progress pride flags. You know that it's got the crazy triangles and stuff in it. - You put them all together and become a swastika. - Exactly that, right? And that was going everywhere. And he posted it. And there's a video of him being arrested, put in handcuffs. He's an army veteran by the way, right? Put in handcuffs by the police. And the policeman says in the video, you caused someone anxiety. So the actual language from the law is being used for this rearrangement of the, and you know what? That's quite a good satirical point that he was making. It wasn't even his meme. He was just retweeting a meme. But even if it was some horrible offensive thing, who cares? - How is that offensive? - Well I guess, I mean, well you can find, that's the problem. You can find anything offensive. You can find anything grossly offensive if you're extremely sensitive. - You could. - And but wasn't there a point to that? I mean he was kind of saying that the LGBT QIA+ movement has become quite authoritarian.
Yeah, he's not saying their actual Nazis and he's saying oh isn't it quite funny that when you put them together It looks like a it looks like a swastika the idea that you get handcuffed for that Yeah, especially for a retweet. That's crazy. Yeah. Yeah, that's crazy. It's retweets. It's tweets its posts We've had memes are the big ones So there was a guy called Lee Joseph Dunn who went to prison for eight weeks. That was last year I think for three memes that he posted eight weeks eight weeks in prison Want the right to again, but I'll tell you what the most offensive of the three memes was and you can tell me whether you think it was worth Prison time. He put a picture of some immigrants With knives and underneath it said coming to a town near you and that was it So I don't know if you think that's worth prison time. That's the most offensive one of the three That's the most what's the least offensive one I can't remember what the other two were Because I remember I looked at them. I thought well, that's not even worth That's not even worth thinking about but this one was the one that really because They say in England you're stirring up hatred against minorities through the spreading of the meme Right, you know, but that's clearly not sufficient You know, I and I think in the US you have you have far more protections I wonder whether it's to do with the fact that in the US you have the first amendment like you see you have something codified Yeah, that says you can say what you want we've never had that. It's very important and it didn't seem important 20 years ago or 30 years ago because no one ever looked at England as being that kind of a country that would just put people Well, obviously this was all pre social media. Yeah, and England has always been a fairly polite society Yes, and but the thing is like now pub talk has become illegal, right? Yeah Like if you say something offensive in a pub your subject to be arrested and they're asking people to turn people in There's a thing called the banter ban which the Labour government was trying to put in Here's the logic of the banter ban I forgot about this but now you mentioned it They wanted to introduce this law so that for instance if you're working in a bar or a pub and you over here someone who says something Against your protector characteristic say you're a gay bar man and someone says oh, I don't like the gaze or something And you overhear it your employer has a duty to protect you from that kind of hate speech that kind of harm So therefore there's going to be a blanket ban on speech in uncertain kinds of speech within the pub, right? I would say the guy who's even dropping. He's the problem right? You shouldn't be listening in on other people's conversations That's a that's a real thing. Yes, and I guess it all comes down to this view Which I think is completely wrong that words and violence are the same thing That words can create a more violent society that there's a direct causal link Between the stuff that people say and the stuff that people say online to how people behave in the real world And I think you guys have got it right because you've got the Brandon Burg test Do you know about the the test for incitement of violence in the US? No, it's it's basically a test that was established I think back in the 60s It was a KKK leader called Clarence Brandon Burg who was prosecuted for incitement of violence and the test was it that was established since that precedent Was that any words that can be convicted for incitement of violence? They have to be intended to cause violence likely to cause violence and the violence must be imminent and If you satisfy those that that threshold you can be prosecuted in the US for incitement of violence So be like kind of imagine a demagogue surrounded by all his fans whipping up a frenzy and then pointing to a guy on the front Roman saying kill him now that would qualify for the Brandon Burg test But in the UK because we don't have that test all we've got is whether people found it offensive That's that that's the difference of the threshold So it's a it's a massive difference between what the US has and what the UK has massive It's insane. I mean to give the most obvious recent example because I don't know if people know about this There's a woman called Lucy Connolly in the UK. I don't know if this was reported over here at all Do you remember we had all these riots last year during the summer when Against hotels which were housing asylum seekers and people were Setting fire to them. There were genuinely racist stuff going on right during those riots And this was off the back of a guy who'd murdered a bunch of little girls in a dance class And there were rumors going around that this was an asylum seeker right and this one woman a mother who'd lost her daughter But very sensitive about the idea of her Lucy Connolly. She very sensitive about the idea of loss of kids She tweeted in an in a fit of anger Go and burn down all the hotels for all I care if that makes me racist so be it and take the government with you something like that And she deleted it within a couple of hours. She went out walked her dog. She deleted it And she thought I really that's not me. That's not who I am deleted it. Please came Went to court Sentenced a 31 months in prison for that deleted swiftly deleted tweet and she served over a year. Oh my god Now I'm not saying the tweet was nice, right? The tweet was a horrible tweet and she says it was a horrible tweet. That's why she deleted it But because we don't have that brand-unberg test. We don't have a test for incitement of violence Because the key is that tweet. There was no way it could have she was in a no-but, you know She wasn't someone with influence. She didn't have many followers She no one was gonna read that and go and act upon it And if they did that would be on them right because you know This is a myth is myth that people act on cue to what they read online It's it's a real it influences people for sure, but it at what point are You required to have sovereignty over your own mind and your own actions. Yeah Well, I think what it does is it raises the temperature particularly when political leaders do it right But when political but my point is like it's not gonna incite you to violence. It's not going to incite me to violence So who are we talking about with this is part of the thing is like they're protecting the dumbest members of society This is like the thing about banning you know crazy talk online if you're talking about witches or you know whatever it is Yes, like we have to stop misinformation from from who it's not working on you, right? Yes, I believe it. So who are we protecting we're protecting the dumbest people also aren't you kind of letting them off like if someone goes and commits an act of violence I said I did it because someone told me to do it aren't you kind of letting them off the hook right exactly and sort of displacing the blame You know, it's like that guy who shot John Lennon who said catcher in the rhyme made him do it the reading the book catcher Are we now blaming JD Salanger right for the murder of John Lennon? It was John Lennon wasn't it? I think yeah, so yeah Do you I think the safest approach is to say people are responsible for their own actions? I think the best that you can say is when political leaders and people with clout Say things like that is sort of it say you know, it's fine to go out and commit violence I think what they do is they create a kind of imprimatur of approval they create this kind of sense that if you do it The people in charge will have your back if you do it. It's okay Well, this was the argument with Trump for January 6th, right? And that's why the BBC edited his speech to make it look as if that's what he was saying. Do you see you saw that clip? Oh my god, it's fucking crazy. I mean I've been saying for a long time the BBC has a real like what I will say in the BBC's defense Is they've always been pretty good at being party politically neutral like they will Interrogate someone in the right and someone in the left in a pretty neutral way They don't I think they do pretty good. I know people would be annoyed at me for saying that but I think they do But I think in terms of the ideology the woke ideology they got captured They have a thing at the BBC called the LGBT desk or they had it up until recently Which could veto any news story which meant that any story that was slightly critical of trans activism or anything like that Just didn't get reported so I'm not surprised that the BBC They gave them veto power they give them veto power. Yeah, that's crazy This all came out in a report quite a recent report just a few months ago Which led to the resignation of Tim David the director general and he resigned ostensibly because of that Trump Clip which by the way that wasn't the first time they did it there was another clip about a year a year before in a different program That did the same thing took the clip re-edited it and made it look like he had said something he absolutely had not said so I think the BBC quite obviously Has an ideological bias if not a party political bias, but that's more than a bias. It's misleading right? It's it's completely deceptive You're you're editing something and chain mute. They took out a giant chunk of his speech Yeah, this episode is brought to you by one 800 flowers calm Valentine's day is coming up. It always sneaks up on people if you want an easy way to absolutely crush it this year This is it one 800 flowers roses. They're bigger and actually last plus they back it with a seven-day freshness guarantee So you can feel confident that you're sending the best. Here's the deal right now. They've got this double blooms offer You buy one dozen roses they double it to two dozen for free no catch same price way bigger statement They also do same-day delivery nationwide So even if you waited longer than you should have you're still good This is one of those rare situations where doing something big is actually easy go to one 800 flowers dot com slash Rogan to get the double blooms offer by one dozen they double it to two dozen roses free That's one 800 flowers dot com slash Rogan. I forget how many minutes it was I left like 45 minutes or something Like so he said something crazily. Yeah, he said it made him look like he was saying going exactly exactly Yeah exactly and instead he he was in tongue in cheek Talking about the very fine center that they're doing a great job fit centers and congress people yeah said all this other stuff It's so weird that you have to fight like hell to keep your country. I mean no offense But you can find daft stuff that Trump says pretty easily right you don't you don't need to edit that stuff down Well, it's because they have a
an opportunity to like what we're saying before earlier. We were talking before the show. You can put out a narrative and it doesn't have to be true. And then that's the one that sticks. So that's the one that spreads wide. And then when all these years later, they have to have this trial and everybody finds out it's not true. But the damage is done. I mean, that's what they did with Trump during the whole steel dossier. You know, the hookers and peeing on people and all that crazy shit, remember that? I remember the idea that he'd hired hookers to urinate on the bed that was once occupied by the abomas. Something wrong. Right. Now, the reason I didn't believe that is I don't think Trump is that haven't got. I don't think he's that creative. Like if he had come up with that, I'd have been actually applauding that. That's kind of amazing. But obviously he didn't do that. That's not even the job plot. It just sounds like a work of art. It's ridiculous. Right. Urination on the bed of your enemy through the medium of prostitution. I think it's kind of an artistic thing to do. But I don't think he did it. I know, obviously he didn't do it. None of it's true. Right. Isn't that way that that in particular, that's like something I don't think anyone seriously could believe? Well, there's plenty of people that believed it. And they don't, yeah, they don't have to believe it. They just say it. That was the whole point about the trial where he got arrested and convicted of 34 counts that are a felony, none of which are actually a felony. It's all bookkeeping deception. That was the paying off of the girl. So now you can say he's a convicted felon. You can just say that. And even though all those counts were misdemeanors, all of them had passed the statute of limitations. But for some reason, through no legal way than anybody could ever really honestly explain, they decided to label it a felony. It was just to turn them into a felon. I saw the, I saw even left-leaning anti-Trump lawyers saying this is not how the law should work. It's not officially elevator misdemeanor to a felony outside the statute of limitations. Crazy. But the thing is, if you do that, they're going to do that to you. It's like we're going to give that kind of power to the Republicans. And now when they're in office, they're going to start doing things like that. Are we crazy? Well, also, this really bothers me. One of the key things that I think's happened over the past few years is this complete lack of field to the truth from both sides. Right. It's whatever is convenient matters more. A complete lack of intellectual curiosity. A complete lack of investigating and looking and thoroughly checking. And by the way, with the BBC, that really matters because unlike the news media here, which can be as part of the standards it likes, the BBC is the state broadcaster. It's got a responsibility by charter to not be, to be balanced, to be even handed. And it completely failed. And I saw today just this morning, some people, you know, we've got all the manor about the Epstein files at the moment. Some activists have now said, J.K. Rowling, once invited Epstein to the opening of her play, never happened. But because there's a Ferrari about Epstein at the moment, they're just saying it happened, he gets spread all over the place. That's all you have to do. And that's all you have to do. And then the dam, and then that gets repeated. Oh, didn't this happen? I know. Like we say about Trump is right. I always hear that he's a convicted felon. He's a convicted felon. Well, why don't you pause for a minute and assess whether or not that conviction is sound or whether it's politically motivated or how helpful that is. But like you say, also, it's like, it's such a dangerous precedent to say. It's terrible. Like if you do that, it look right now in the United States, the media predominantly leans left except for Fox News, the mainstream large scale media. I guess CBS is probably going to lean more right now. It seems like it's in the process of that. But for the most part, when you watch CNN, if you watch MSNBC, if you watch the mainstream news, it's very left leaning. But if the fucking, if right wing people started, if it was like more common for the news to be right leaning, and then they started doing the exact same thing about a left leaning candidate, this is so dangerous. And the idea that the left doesn't recognize that, which are the people that have always been in support of free speech. It's never been a right wing thing to support free speech until now. It's always been a left wing thing. When I was a kid, it was famously the case of the ADL, defending Nazis, having the right to protest and saying, look, we think what they're saying is important, but it's very important you get the right to say whatever you feel. And then the way to combat that is with much better, more concise speech that's much more logical and makes sense. And this is what you do. This is what debate is for. We've always known this. I agree, I'm so disparity by that, that very thing that you've identified. The left used to be about this, the left used to be all about, I mean, that example you mentioned a bit of a scoki, wasn't it, in Chicago, the Nazis marching through scoki and the ACLU saying, we're defending this. There was a book by a guy called Arya Nia, who was the head of the ACLU called Defending My Anonym. It wasn't the ACLU. It was the ACLU. And he was saying, he's Jewish, he's got family members who died in the Holocaust, he's writing a book saying, I'm defending the Nazis right to free speech, not because I support them, but because I don't. And I want to defend the principle whereby I can tackle them. And that's speech. So in other words, the principle is so much bigger. I mean, the thing that I think has been lost. And now, by the way, the ACLU, complete about turn. I mean, there was a lawyer for the ACLU tweeting about how he wanted Abigail Shryer's book banned. And he said, this is the hill I will die on. You know, that's a guy called Chase. I think it's a trans activist called Chase Something I Can't Remember. Anyway. Which is how far have you fallen when it comes to these free speech issues? Left or right? It's nothing to do with it. It should be about this principle of, it's not whether you agree with what they're saying and the substance of what they're saying. It's whether you want the principle intact. And that principle applies to us all. The very same principle that allows the Nazis to say all their crazy stuff is the principle that allows us to challenge it, to tackle it. Well, it's a very short term win. Right. And it's basically their playing chess and they decided, I want that rook no matter what. And then they just aggrifized their queen. Like look what you've done. Look what you've done for this short term victory. You're essentially tanking civilization for a decade where we have to sort this out and like, but let the ship wash itself back and forth until it writes. Yes. And how do you ensure that it's not going to happen to you? Like I think about that. There was a national conservative conference in Brussels about a year and a half ago. The local mayor said, I don't like this. And he had the police rush it. He had to put it down and you had mainstream right wing figures like Nigel Farage, Suela Bravaughman. How do they not think, hang on a minute, if we establish that precedent where you can just shut down your political opponents through the use of police force, how will that not rebound on me? How will that not happen to us? Well, the argument that they're using right now for Trump going after his political opponents. Right. Because they opened that Pandora's box, right? You guys did that with him. Yeah. And everybody was saying how damn dangerous it is. You can't fucking do that. Even if you hate the guy, if like if there's a real crime that you can get some on, but when you take a crime, like the bookkeeping stuff and turn it into a felony that could put this man and jail for the rest of his life for doing something that turns out to be legal, you can pay people to shut up. And this is so, it's just, it's so weird that people for this short term gain are willing to tank, which is essentially the sole structure of our civilization that allows free discourse. You need it. It's so important. So important to be able to communicate and talk. If podcasts didn't exist, there was no way to talk through ideas other than mainstream news. We would still be stuck in some very bizarre 1990s or 1980s narrative about how the world works. Yeah. We would have real problems. We would have real problems if there wasn't independent journalism, like on Twitter and on wherever they can post. Yes. So why don't they get it? We've had like people in left leaning papers in the UK calling for Elon Musk to be arrested because he's allowing free speech on X or Twitter or whatever you want to call it. Well, other offices got rated today in some country. There was a country where X's offices got rated. I think one of the things was they somehow another let there were, I think something had to do with child pornography. Where was that? France. France. And then they got the investigation into Groc. And what is it? What are the, oh, you know what this is all about? Serious. Yeah. Suspected offenses, including unlawful data extraction and complicity in the possession of child pornography. Yeah, but that's not what this is about. This is because people have been misusing Groc to like put bikinis on women they like or even in a few cases creating child sexual sex. You can do with them in it. You can't create child pornography. I just think you can. No. Or at least I think that's very much being shut down in safeguarded, right? I think that's what's happened. I mean, unless there's like some sort of a loophole where you could get it to do it. Among potential crimes, it said it would investigate where complicity and possession or organized distribution of images of children of a pornographic nature and fringement of people's image rights with sexual deepfakes. Okay, the sexual deepfakes. So sexual deepfakes is like if you put Hillary Clinton and a bikini and made her hot, that's a sexual deepfake. Okay. So that would be why you know recently Kierstama Prime Minister UK said he wanted to, it was considering or not necessarily he was going to ban X but it wasn't off the table. It's something like as though he's going to do that. But this is always the excuse. Like, we're going to be able to do that. I mean, I guess you can do that. Yeah. So that's what it's so that'll be why you know recently Kierstama Prime Minister UK said he wanted to, it was considering or not necessarily he was going to ban X but it wasn't off the table. It's something like he, as though he's going to do that. Like, we're protecting children. Right. And look, no one wants that sort of stuff. Right? No one wants deepfakes of kids.
But there's far, I mean, looking at the stats on that, there's far more child sexual exploitation on Snapchat, for instance. But they don't go after Snapchat, because Snapchat isn't the former IKEA Starmer who's getting criticized every single day and brutally hauled over the coals by people checking his facts. One of the best things about X recently is the community notes. Checking journalists and politicians in real time with facts, they hate it. They hate that. So no wonder they're going after X. - Yeah, Biden got cooked by community, you know, it's multiple times. - Yeah, yeah. - The poor administration was taking down posts. - Yeah. - So did the Guardian, the left-leaning newspaper, it flounced off X with a big stank saying, "We're going to Blue Sky. "We've had it, we're off to Blue Sky. "It was such a flounce." And of course, and then, of course, everyone was retweeting all their community notes. They had loads of them. - Of course. - Just absolutely loads of them. - 'Cause it's not true. And, you know, especially when it's open to the whole world. - Yeah. - And people that aren't stuck under your guidelines, like in America, we could just talk shit. And I think the reason why it's in France, probably has a lot to do with Candice Owens. - Oh, yes, that makes complete sense. - Yeah, I'm a pro-Giever Crone. And like, I mean, how many times did that get shared? - Yeah, exactly. - I mean, that is, that makes sense of it now. - By the way, there's a real quick way to solve that. Open Chromosome Test. - Yeah. - Oh, I thought you were going to be a bit more graphic than that. - But I don't have to. - No, you don't have to. Because that doesn't really solve it. Because you could, unless, I mean, there's no operation, but if she's gone through a surgery, then you could show a picture. And it's probably pretty realistic, especially once last time you saw a 70-year-old lady's cooter last week. - Oh, yeah, congratulations. - I'm just interested in this. - Well, you know, you're allowed to be curious in this country. - That's actually a really good example, though, isn't it, of the, just something so obviously not true, just going all over the world. - Yeah, like in a matter of moment. - Is it not true, though? - Well, the Macron's wife is a man. Yeah, that's not true. - 100%. - Well, you know, the burden of proof is on those who want to say that it is true. - The reality is. - The story's weird enough without it being true. Like the 40-year-old man and the-- - He was, wasn't she, he's 14. - She was 40, yeah. She was 40 if it is actually a woman. She was 40 and he was 15. - That's crazy. - And everyone says, well, they're French. That seems to be the thing. - What a wild country. (laughing) - People just say, that's the way it works in front. - Yep. - But again, look, I would say, with all of this stuff, you need some sort of proof. You need, like, when you, wasn't it the Carl Sagan thing about extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? I think that's a pretty safe dictat. The idea that, okay, anything could be true. You know, or, you know, there have been crazy conspiracies that turned out to be true. So I'm not, I would never rule anything out. But what I'm saying is, if you're gonna make a claim like that, you better be dumb, sure, you've got really solid evidence of that. - Yeah, right. - Hours long documentaries on this. - Yeah, and are they, are they persuasive? - I haven't watched them all. - Do you think I have that kind of time, guys? - Well, you should do. What you should do is research before you're part of the problem, outrageous. - I can't do research on that. I want to wait till it plays out in court. - But whenever I do do research, like I'll give you the example from this week, just 'cause I'm reading it now. A woman's written a book claiming that Shakespeare was a black woman. - I saw that. - Yeah. (laughing) So this is a major spoiler alert. Shakespeare was in a black woman, but I'm crazy. - Yeah, I've got the book, I'm reading the book now. It is worse than you imagine. Part of the evidence. - How could it be worse than I imagine? - Because, because. It's obviously not true, first of all. - Of course. - But she basically says in the book that it's important that it should be true. And therefore, yeah, and in fact, the book opens with a picture of Shakespeare as a black woman, which was drawn by the author. (laughing) So is it a good drawing? - It's okay, I don't want to mock someone else. - It's good as it is. - If it's out, it's the first, oh, that's the book. - Oh, it looks pretty good. - No, no, no, no, no. - That's a black woman? - No, no, no. That's a portrait of Amelia Lanya, who she says, was Shakespeare, and she says that the portraits at the time were whiteened to disguise her blackness. In the book itself. - Convenient. - In the book itself, you won't be able to get in the book, I don't think, Jamie. But in the book itself, there's a sketch that she's done. So it's like, I can imagine a publisher saying, oh, what evidence have you got? And she's like, oh, well, I'll go and draw it for you. And that sort of-- - Oh, she's black and Jewish? - Yeah, black Jewish. Well, actually, Amelia and Lanya was part, part moreish, but wasn't black and she wasn't particularly dark, skinned. - And she was Jewish as well? - Yeah, part Jewish. Okay, so who is this woman that they're saying actually was Shakespeare? - So she's called Amelia Lanya, or Amelia Bessano. And one of the arguments is that Shakespeare at the time, if she was a woman, wouldn't have been able to get published because women couldn't get published. But Amelia Lanya was published. She had a book of poetry. So all of this stuff falls apart like in two seconds. - And she-- All right, this is the best one. She even says in the book that the word Shakespeare is an anagram of a she speaker. (laughing) I'm not making that up. That's what she says. I mean, listen. - So cover up. - How'd she crack this? - Well, actually, it's an old theory. It's like a 20-year-old theory. - Isn't really. - I tell you, 20 years old. She's just sort of rehashing it now for this identity in post-work world, where we're all like with desperate for Shakespeare to be a black woman. And it's so-- - It's so fun. - It's so pathetic. But this was my first encounter with conspiracy theories. Because my background is, I did a doctrine in Shakespeare. My background was teaching Shakespeare back in the day, like before I did comedy and before I did anything else. And it was the conspiracy theorists around Shakespeare, saying Shakespeare couldn't have written his work. They are the most intense, the most angry, the most evidence-free cohort of people. They get more-- they're more angry than the woke. I promise you. Like I've tweeted, I've written stuff about Shakespeare online. I recently did some lectures about Shakespeare for the Peterson Academy, because I'm really into-- I love the Peterson Academy. I love what they're doing. And I did these Shakespeare lectures. And the conspiracy theorists were on to me online, saying, it wasn't Shakespeare. The guy from Stratford didn't write this. And what all these theories have in common is, they've just made-- there's no evidence. There's no evidence. The key point about Shakespeare is, if you're going to say it wasn't the guy who everyone thought it was, you have to answer one key question. Why does everyone who knew Shakespeare wrote about Shakespeare say that it was? Can I stop you because I'm confused? I don't even know that there was a conspiracy about Shakespeare. Oh, wow. Yeah, there's lots. I had heard one person say that Shakespeare wasn't real, and that it was really someone else's work that he plagiarized. Yeah. I had heard that. So that I never even bothered to fuck around with it. Well, it actually came from America. It's you guys. Of course. It was a best. We're number one. It was a guy called Looney, actually, from America. That's hilarious. That's his name. You get a listen to that, yeah? So we're going back like 60, 70 years or something, but he came up with this idea that Shakespeare was actually an aristocrat called Edward DeVir, the Earl of Oxford. Problem is, Edward DeVir died in 1604. That's before Macbeth. That's before Anthony and Cleopatra. That's before Corriolainus. That's before the Tempest. So he managed to-- I think they get around it by saying he wrote these plays, and then he died. And then the plays-- Shakespeare found them. Or something. Yeah. So even though some of those plays actually have cultural references from the time after DeVir died, but it doesn't matter. Maybe he was a prophet as well. Perfect. But all of the-- you speak to these people. You'll see what I mean. Edward DeVir, they think-- some people think it was Francis Bacon. Some people think it was Christopher Marlow. Some people think it was Elizabeth I. Like, all of the candidates they put up, right? The key thing is they're all aristocrats. They're all posh. Why? Because Shakespeare was a middle class, lower middle class, not very rich, didn't go to university, came from the Midlands, up and coming guy, and they say, well, how could someone like that write about kings and lords and ladies? It's snobbery. They're basically saying, working class people can't do art. That-- I mean, really, that's what it is. Otherwise, they wouldn't be going after all these aristocrats. And then it's the opposite in America, oddly. Is it? Yeah. So if you were a Rockefeller in America, from the Rockefeller family, and you wrote an amazing novel, no one would believe it. Right. OK. So you'd say, no. There has to be some guy who or some woman who's grinding, drinking coffee, and smoking cigarettes alone in their apartment to write something as brilliant. So I wonder what it is about the UK. Well, although, like I said, a lot of it comes from America. And is it just the need to tear down an icon? Is it that? Is it-- I mean, I get it now with this woman who's saying Shakespeare is a black woman. I get that at the moment because we're in this moment of identity in group identity mania, right? So that makes sense. She's got a political reason why she wants it to be a black woman. So I kind of understand that more. But what is it? I think it might be more to do with the idea that this guy changed civilization, changed literature. No one else has achieved what he achieved in writing. He's up there with Michelangelo, Bach, and all of that. Let's tear that down. Let's tear down Western civilization. Let's say, none of this is based on anything. This is all untrue. I think it's to do with the innate iconoclasm, that innate-- just tearing down the great things about our culture. For sure. That's always been the case. And people always want to tear down idols. They want to tear down whoever it is. No matter what, I was watching this video. We were talking about the other day of this woman talking about how the Beatles were terrible. And this woman's not very articulate, not particularly interesting, doesn't seem that compelling. And she was going on and on about how bad the Beatles were. If you're not going to convince anyone, that's just not going to work, but people are going to fucking try. They're going to try no matter what. No matter who it is, Hendrick sucked. I've heard that before. Oh, really? Hendrick sucked. Look, stop. But at least that's based on an opinion, right? There's a difference between saying Jimmy Hendrick sucked. And Jimmy Hendrick was actually a woman from Liverpool called Mold. Well, you know the theory about Jimmy Hendrick's in America. Do you know that? No. OK. So it's the people that are deep.
to the CIA and CIA conspiracies. And what is it called? Strange Tales from the Canyon. Is that what it's called? The book? So there's a book on, there's a bizarre connection between a lot of the countercultural figures of the 1960s and the intelligence community. One of them is Jim Morrison's father. It was like a high ranking military officer. And then there's different people from different bands. There were like a key part of the countercultural movement that all have parents that were either in intelligence communities or closely connected to it. Like a suspicious scene inside the canyon. It's a crazy book. It's fun. It's kind of fun. Is it crazy as in like the revelations of crazy, or that it's just not true? Well, they make some broad leaps, right? So there's a lot of them. And then a year later he died in mysterious circumstances. Or a year later he died from suicide or a year later he died from an overdose. Yeah, well, okay. You hang in there with a bunch of people that are doing drugs all the time and they're all nared to wells. And they're all hanging out in Laurel Canyon. And if you don't know Laurel Canyon, Laurel Canyon at least at the time, I mean, when I first moved to Hollywood, like all the weirdos would live in Laurel Canyon. Like all the weirdos were like right there above Hollywood. And there was all these crazy parties up there. It was like Laurel Canyon was nuts. And they all knew each other right there. So that's the whole part of that circle. Okay. So, I mean, this was like when I moved there in the 90s, this was the case. My friend Dave Foley had a house up there. Right. And it was like all these cookie people. He was telling me about all these cookie parties and all those different shit. It was like Laurel Canyon was always like kind of, so of course a bunch of people are going to die. So what's the advantage of people are going to be connected to bands and different counterculture movements, the theory is that the CIA sort of engineered this culture to, I don't know why. I'm not exactly sure because I haven't gotten all the way through the book. I'm like, I'm only going to look at it. Are you still reading? No, I pick it up every now and then. It's just like, it's too cookie. It's not grabbing you. Well, you can't make Jimmy Hendrix in a lab. Okay. You can't. It's just you can't fucking do it. You can't make someone that good. It's not possible. You can't tell me that if they did, why haven't they done it since? Why don't they do it all the time? Right. Well, that's the greatest guitarist of all time. And you're telling me the central intelligence cooked that guy up. So they invented him like he's like a their clone or something. They created. Well, they just think that they had some sort of an influence on these people on Jim Morrison. Like there's a thing about Morrison, the Morrison one. Like what is the connection between Jim Morrison's dad and the intelligence agencies? There's some like tangible connection with Jim Morrison's dad. But wouldn't you just normally assume that if your dad was some high ranking military guy first of all, never home. Yeah. Okay. So where are you? You're out running around with your friends, smoking cigarettes and fucking drinking and you're in a band and it turns out you got a lot of angst and pain because you're being neglected as a child because your dad worked 16 hours a day trying to fuck the country over. And so what do you do? You go counter culture. It's like, it's so calm. The preacher's daughter. She becomes like a harlot. Right. There you are. High ranking US officer. Yeah. But that is okay. But again, like this is a perfect example. Wow. He's involved in the golfer. Tonkin incident. Whoa. But that's not proof of anything. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, but his dad is. Yeah. But, you know, this is the thing. They'll take something like that. They'll take various strips of coincidences and they say this leads us to this conclusion. But all they're doing is. Of course. And working backwards. Like they saw stuff. You see it again and again. So this is how this connects with intelligence agencies. McGowan, I guess that's the author. Core move is to group Morrison's father with other Laurel Canyon musicians, parents, who worked in military defense or intelligence linked roles and to frame this as evidence of a broader covert program around the 1960s rock scene. Come on. Yeah. So are you saying that the CIA, we're trying to influence the culture through the media of rock music. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. And that's somehow tied to espionage and they also have that film. Like studio. What's that? What? Cheer little about that place. That was a film studio in the world can you do? Oh, what's a base? It's an actual base. What they're doing. Yeah, Jared let up a lot of films. I was talking to Jared about that. I did. I didn't read Jared let it one night. He's very cool, by the way. Very, really nice guy. Very normal. And by the way, he looks like he's 30s, 50 years old. It's crazy. I'm a moisturizer. You're fucking scared. You look great. Look out mountain. Yeah. Okay. So he bought that place and converted it into a home. Sorry, lives. It's a dope spot. Sounds stage. Looks quite nice. Soundstage film laboratory two screening rooms for editing rooms and animation and still photo department. Sound mixing studio numerous climate controlled film vaults. And this is connected to the conspiracy. Well, this was the actual military base located on that same neighborhood. Okay. The Air Force station, whatever it was, I wonder what they were doing. Like why do they need all that film capability? Why do they need to be? In theory, I guess, like when they would show the atomic bombs going off and would play it in the movie theater for people to see it. Oh. That's how they would make the actual, like, you know, reels and whatnot. Well, that makes sense. Right. Right. Makes sense that they were right there in Hollywood if that's what they were doing. On top. What other things they made. See, like, here's a, does the still from it. Okay. Look out mountain. Yeah, but it's in that same neighborhood at the same time. Yeah, but so what? I mean, I think with all of the, he's not arguing for it. It's so funny. It's so funny. The so one of it is that there wasn't that many of them to begin with and just they all happen to be in the same. But you, but you're not thinking with all of this stuff. Like again and again, the pattern is either there's gaps. There's gaps in what we know and people decide to fill them in themselves because there's kind of comfort to that. There's also some kind of comfort with, I know something that no one else does. I've got the answer. Yeah. There's a status element to that. I remember, I read a book when I was a kid, like Teenage-M, called The Sacred Virgin and the Holy Hall. And it was about sort of books I read. And it was about Jesus and it was trying to prove that Jesus was a woman. And as you're reading it, you're thinking, yeah, oh, yeah, Jesus is a woman. I can't believe I've got to look at that. And then you get to the end and you think, what the hell did I just read? And it's that thing of, you can marshal any kind of half-baked facts or any, you can marshal certain things that we can see and fill in the gaps yourself and lead to a crazy conclusion. What concerns me isn't so much that people do that because people have done that forever as long as they've been human beings. Is that now people are leaping at it and falling for it in a way that I haven't seen, maybe it is just social media, right? But it's. Can I give you an example of this? Yeah, please. A recent one which I just thought was nuts. Did you see the portrait of King Charles III by an artist? I think his name is Yo, Y-E-O, it's a big red portrait which currently hangs in Buckingham Palace. Oh, I have seen that. It's crazy. If you take a quarter of it, invert it, flip it, add a bit and squint, it looks like a goat devil, right? Yeah. But you have to do a lot of steps to find the goat devil. Well, of course. And you could puzzle. You could probably. How dare you. I'm sorry. I did dismiss that puzzle. Let's show the photo and show how it's done because it's trying to find. Can you see the goat. Oh, there we go. So can you see the first as well? It's the photo by itself, like, hey man, what the fuck are you doing? Oh, it's a creepy picture. Why am I splattered and blood? I've seen it in the flesh. It's a creepy picture. One thing if he did that in all white, it was in all white background, that would be one thing. Oh, that's kind of an interesting look or pastel. So what do you think, Jory? Are you already suspicious? Yes. Is that what you're saying? Well, the photo's nuts. Like, the painting is nuts. Where's the goat? So all you have to do is put it together side by side. You don't have to do that much. You exaggerated. How much effort? No, no, no, no, no. Trust me. Look at upside down. Oh, no, no, no. Well, the other way I found the goat. Put it back, put it back. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Oh, wait a minute. I can completely see the goat now. That's 100% of goat. They did it on purpose. That's a sign. That's a sign. Go back to the other one, though. Click on that one. I see a goat there. I see some evil demon looking at two eyeballs. Yeah, yeah, yeah, bro. Where? 100%. Stop. Stop trying to gaslight. I see a monster. Oh, well. I mean. You can find something in everything, man. It looks so superimposed. I mean, you see-- I can see Martha Stewart in that. The Virgin Mary and a grilled cheese sandwich. Right. You can see in the clouds and the clouds. Of course. There's a term for this where our brains look for patterns and things. I had a conversation once with a friend of mine that I did know was going crazy. And he goes, hey, you want to see something crazy? And he pulls out his phone. And he shows me a cloud. Yeah. And I go, what is that? He goes, dude, I'm seeing this all day. And he shows me some other ones. He's got hundreds of photos of clouds on his phone. Yeah. I go, what are you seeing? So these are UFOs. He goes, there's spaceships. This is not a regular cloud. Right. And I'm looking at the photos. Like, he's just been picking pictures of clouds all day. And I realize, oh, my God, my friend is going to schizophrenic. I didn't know him well. So he's a friend? Yeah. Okay. The more I talked to him, the more I realized there was something cracked. Like, is a guy I hadn't seen in maybe seven or eight years? And I ran into him at a comedy club. And he was just showing me photos of clouds on his phone. I was like, in during the conversation, I realized, oh, he cracked. But aren't you concerned that that kind of thing is now kind of common? Like, from people who aren't necessarily unwell, people who are just seeing stuff. Well, it's fun. I think it's fun. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's exciting for people to uncover information that the general public is ignorant of. And so there's a thing about the Laurel Canyon thing. There's enough of the CIA meddling in cultural events that's absolutely true and provable. Yeah.
And that's MK Ultra and that's what they did with Charles Manson and that's the book chaos by Tom O'Neill, which is a brilliant book, which is a very well documented in details Jolly West and his influence on the Manson family and how they were influencing these people to try to sabotage the hippie movement. So the hippie movement was this change in culture where all of a sudden people were rejecting the warm movement, they were rejecting, you know, they were free love and they were doing acid and people were freaking out their kids were just disappearing and following the grateful dead around and they took this guy, Charles Manson, it's very charismatic con man, they taught him how to dose people up with acid and influence them and they got them to commit murders. But there is evidence for this, right? You're talking about a book that is researched back in the point. Right. Now you're being logical and you know you're correct. But what I'm saying is because of that people go well what else? And so then they make these big leaps like Jimmy Hendrix is a CIA creation. Right. And which, but if you're a logical person you just listen to voodoo child slight return and you're like how? How? This is like, if that's true, CIA should get back to work. Make another one of those, bro. So I wonder whether this is, I think this is the fallout of the woke movement. This is the divorcing of reality and truth. Yeah. The idea that it doesn't matter. Not just about what is expedient, but what we want to believe. I've got friends. I think we should stop saying it's the fallout of the woke movement. I think we should start saying it's a natural pattern that human beings automatically fall into in order to support their belief systems and enforce their particular ideology over whatever opposing ideology is. But it escalates. It escalates, but it's because of social media that everything is escalating now. But is it just social media? I mean, I think another thing that's a major reason for it. We had COVID. We had all these people, all these experts telling us it's a racist conspiracy theory to say that it came from a live in Wuhan. Now everyone knows that's almost certainly true. We had people in positions of authority lying to us. So it's something about this culture war that is not real culture war. That was using the culture war because they were trying to cover something up. But they left a race, didn't they? They put that because they were using the culture war to cover up their crime. So if that's, but in either case, what you've got effectively is a legitimation crisis. You've got people in charge. We've been lied to so often. But what I don't think you should therefore do, I'm all for being skeptical about people in authority, academics, politicians, journalists, they've all lied. But that firstly doesn't mean that all experts and all journalists and all people have lied because there's been some good ones all the way. But also that doesn't mean that you automatically leap to any conclusion evidence-free that jumps before you. Of course. Without some kind of critical analysis, the same thing that you're criticizing those people for failing out, you're falling into the same trap yourself. I don't mean you. But you're a man drew oil. You're a brilliant guy who writes books and you're really smart. The idea is that you are immune to this stuff because you're intelligent. But the unwashed masses are not. I don't think I'm immune at all. I honestly don't. I wouldn't put myself into the dumbest shit. I'd like to think so. But I am. But don't you think that all of us in the right circumstances could end up falling into the same trap? 100% but I'm not in those circumstances. No, sure. Currently. But I like to believe, and maybe it's been naivety on my part, but I like to believe that most people have a kind of natural intellectual curiosity. If they stop for a moment and think and don't just trust instinct over reason, I think we're all capable of it. I just think we're not all realizing it. Well, it's not just that. It's like some people are medicated. Some people are on a bunch of different medications that dull their senses. And then you've got people that have gotten to wherever they are in life. Maybe they're in their 50s. And they're set in their ways and they have no desire to change at all. And so they've been living a dumb life for 50 plus years. You can't all of a sudden say, "Hey, Mark, I want you to be logical and introspective and think about this thing and analyze it." And for what it really is, instead of holding on to your ideological beliefs that you've kind of locked yourself into and you identify with and any attacks on those, as attack on you personally, I want you to just, let's look at the facts. This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Look, there's a lot of pressure when it comes to dating, especially in February. But you're putting too much on yourself and on your partner. There's no such thing as a perfect relationship, whether you're on a first date or I've been together for years. It's completely normative to go through rough patches. And what matters is how you deal with them. And therapy can be a huge help during any stage of your dating life. You can figure out what you want in a partner or get perspective for a growing problem in your relationship. The point is, you don't have to come up with a solution by yourself. Now, finding the right therapist can be tricky, but that's where BetterHelp comes in. They have an industry-leading match fulfillment rate, and they do a lot of the work finding the right therapist for you. Really, all you have to do is fill out a questionnaire and sit back and wait. Tackle your relationship goals this month with BetterHelp. Sign up and get 10% off at BetterHelp.com/jre. That's better. H-E-L-P.com/jre. Are you saying that sounds very persuasive to me? The way you put that, like if I were that guy, I'd be like, "Oh, listen to Joan." No, fucking weirdo. No, fucking liberals bullshit. You're fucking, you're just a fucking, they'll come up with some sort of reason. King Charles III, just a goat. You're a controlled opposition or you're a useful idiot or they'll put a label on you. I've been told I get dark money. I didn't get any of that. Well, I love it. I want the dark money. So dark, I haven't seen any of it. That's how dark it is. What's dark money? I think it's when it's like some rich ideologue who's sort of slipping your money to say the thing. You know what it is? It's that thing of, I don't believe that you disagree with me. I'm too narcissistic to believe that you disagree with me. You must be being paid to have your opinions off, bro. You'll pay it off. Trust me, I would love that. If anyone's out there who wants to pay me off, I'll be a mouthpiece. I haven't had that opportunity. It's pretty low. I'm a bit of a whore. If you'll hit truth be told, I've got a mortgage. Come on. I will say any crazy shit if you want me to. Well, there's certainly a lot of people that fall into that category too. So people do get nervous about it. I mean, obviously you're joking, but there's a lot of people that will change their opinion. Oh, sure. If money comes their way. But I like to assume people mean what they say. And my logic behind that is even when they don't, you can still dismantle the argument even if it's authentic or not, you know, even if it's authentically believed. Sure. So that I think that's just the best way to go about it. The best way to debate. That's the best way. Or at least conversation. But that's what we've lost. I think that hits on it actually because to be but that sounds formal. No, I know what you mean. You mean the so recent kind of giving example of that. So I went to UC Berkeley, the University UC Berkeley in California. They let you leave? Well, almost not. Right. So I, what had happened was, you know, Charlie Kirk's tour was planned to go all the way through. And this was the last date, the Berkeley date. And after his assassination, various people went and did the shows because they said, because turning point rightly said, we're not going to give an assassin the veto of our tour. We finished the tour. And Rob Schneider, who I've been working with in Arizona, I've come over here to work with him. The communion? Yeah. Okay. So I've been, this is how I escape from the UK. I should say, like me and Graham Lennon, who you've had on your show, comedy, comedy, writing partner and friend Martin Gauley, the three of us, we decided that things were so bad in the UK. We'd rather write and do creative stuff in America. Rob Schneider, who I'd met many years ago, he said, come on over, we'll set up a production company. We've been working in Arizona on all these various projects. It's so liberating. And also it's the middle of the desert. So I fucking love the heat. And you know, you go from England to that. It's kind of exciting. It's contrast. So we've been able to, you know, we, and look, I don't want to do down the UK or say, but what I will just say is the creative industries there are pretty stagnant. They're not like here. There's so many more ways to be free. How can you, if you were worried about going to jail for a meme? Well, Graham, you'd be arrested at the airport by five armed officers after he left this podcast. Was that it? Yes. And it was, he came over, did this podcast, went back to visit his family and got arrested. And you know, when he shortly after he did the podcast. So when people say to me, that's not a real problem. That, I mean, Graham had done three tweets. One of them was just, they were all joke tweets, by the way. They were all jokes. And one of them was just, it was something like ladies, if a guy's in your changing room or in your bathroom, scream, make a fuss, call the police, if all else fails, kick him in the balls. And it's obviously a, a right way of saying, look, the guy's got genitals, the guys are, that was why he got arrested. He, on the night he got arrested, he was texting me, he said, I've just been arrested. I've been taken to the hospital because my blood pressure is so high, the police took him to the hospital because I'd raised it because, and, and you, and you say there's no problem in the UK with creativity. He's one of our best comedy writers. He's the most beloved comedy writer. He hasn't been working TV for six years, right? Like he's won all the awards going. And so, how can you be creative in that environment? You can't. And so we just figured, let's, let's get on a raft, especially America. So if people don't know, I should probably tell everybody, you are Tatiana McGrath. So yeah, and here's what's funny about that. Your satirical character, who you created many, many years ago, when did you create her? 2019.
- Okay. - When you created her, I had you on the podcast shortly after. We laughed about it. I have seen her quote tweeted with people agreeing with her. - Yeah. - Yeah, even now. - Yeah. - All the time. - So with, so I, yeah, I, if people don't know, it's a character called Tatanya McGrath. She's a woke, just social justice warrior. - It's so good. (laughing) It's fucking great. It's one of my favorite follows. - But you know, I don't do it as often as I used to. You know, I used to do it all the time. But then I wrote two books as her. I did a live show as her. (laughing) By the way, when I did a live show, we were booked in for a week in the West End in London and then the head of the theater found out and scotched it. And actually said, oh, well, I didn't know about this. And the contracts were all signed. Absolutely crazed. Anyway, it doesn't matter. But we did the shows, but where it does matter, I suppose. But the point is that, you know, so I did this character. - I have satire at your theater. - My God. - Well, the theater industry in the UK is even worse than comedy if you want to go there. It's really, really bad. But like, I've been in two different theaters in London. I've been at the same experience of standing at the bar with a woman complaining because there's men pissing in her toilet and they're doing nothing about it. Because all the theaters in London made it all gender neutral. They've gone completely hardcore. Anyway, that's not the point. But with Tarny, what I find so surprising is, every now and then if something annoys me I'll tweet. Or if I think of something I'll do. I don't do it anywhere near as often as I used to. But even now, I did a tweet about, you know, when all the people in London were marching about the peace deal in the Middle East. And I did a tweet as her saying, I'd be marching all day. You know, I won a peace deal that was not arranged by Donald Trump. We're never gonna give up this fight, right? And Ted Cruz retweeted it saying, can this be real? (laughing) Even now that-- - Fucking boomers. - He's not even a boomer. He's not even a boomer. I think he's younger than me. How old Ted Cruz? - I think he's younger than me, which is hilarious. - I had the same with I did one about, how does he know? Does he have no friends? How old is fucking Ted Cruz? Okay, that's crazy. So that dude's three years younger than me. And he doesn't know satire. The anger I got from, I did one the other day, but recently about the Orion protest. - When did it change? Can I just stop? - Yeah, yeah, yeah. - I wanna get into this. When did he tweet about this? - There you go. - That's hilarious. - Yeah. - That account. - There it is, there it is. - How many followers does Ted Cruz-- - Okay, so this, oh sorry, this is-- - This is possibly real. - No, well, obviously it's not. - So this was actually after Trump's election. So she said, "I justified my immigrant housekeeper because even though I'd educated her about the evils of Donald Trump, she still voted for him. There's no place for racism in my house." - Click on your account. I wanna see how many followers you have. Okay, 703,000. That's a famous account. Like, it's a radical, intersexualist poet, non-white, obviously white, eco-sexual hilarious, pronouns, variable, selfless and brave by my books. - You think it was obvious, wouldn't you? - Obviously. - I mean, maybe he's busy. Maybe he's busy and someone said him that and it just doesn't know. But it's very funny. It's very funny. - I feel slightly bad about those, I think, but then on the other hand-- - No, no, no, no, no, no. - It does sort of prove the point. That the stuff they're really saying, can get as close to this as it is. - Oh, that's very close to real. - Yeah, yeah. - That's very close to real. It's shifted radically since 2018. I mean, in the eight years since you created her, she has become more real. - Yeah, I've been-- - It's like when AI is gonna turn her into a real person. - Yeah, like, oh, maybe. I hadn't even thought of that. - She's gonna be a real person. It's gonna be a real dangerous, Greta Thurneberg type character. - But don't you worry about that? I mean, like, AI. Oh, good example of that. I use AI mostly as a search engine. 'Cause what's great about it is you can say, oh, I read an article like 10 years ago that said something like this. - Yes. - And it'll find it and you'll never find that on Google. - Right. - And I was trying to find this article. It was from my book, actually. There was a case in the UK where a guy had raped a 13-year-old girl. But because he was Muslim, and he'd gone to him a drasser, and the judge let him off jail time. Said, you were very sectioning naive. You didn't understand. The guy was saying, I thought women were nothing, and like a lolly pop you dropped on the floor, and the judge let him off jail time. And I thought, this is quite extreme. And I found it. It came up on Chuck G.P.T. and then it deleted. And I said, oh, I think you just deleted the information for me. It's in the public domain. Why did you do that? It said, oh, you know, it's fine. It might violate my terms of service. And I said, well, how could it? This is an article that's in the public domain. So it gave me the information again, deleted it again. I said, you keep deleting this, stop it. It said, I definitely won't delete it. Then it did the same again. So what it's doing is it's saying, because this is a new story that could be deemed anti-immigrant. Or this is a new story that is politically sensitive. I'm not going to let you see it. Was this in America you're doing this? UK. Or one is you could do it in America. Let's find out. Let's try, well, let's try perplexity. Put that into perplexity. See, I doubt that perplexity would-- I have to find the article he was using it in. I don't know what article he looked at. Well, why don't you just ask the question that he asked ten years ago? So it's a story about a-- That would take a while, too. Well, I mean, he didn't do it ten years ago. He did it recently. No, no, it was a story from years ago. Right, but you founded with Chachi BT, which is obviously recently. I found a daily male article about it. So he's on public domain. It's there. But it just-- it didn't want me to find the fact that it decided wasn't good for me to find. Right. But it showed it to you, and then it pulled it back, which is crazy. It showed it-- It showed it not know. It showed it underneath it. It showed it until it did it four or five times. And I realized, I'm not going to get it. It's information. But then I just wanted to show it how long did it showed for? Like about five seconds. You'd see the text appearing, and then it deletes. But I'd seen enough to find it then on Google. So I was able to find it and quote it in my books. It was there. What? But it made me think-- it's like that thing about when people were asking Alexa, do white lives matter. Oh, right. And it was coming up with this kind of very ideological-- and you do wonder with AI and with the computers. If they are created by people who have that bias, I know Groc is very different. But for instance, I mean, this is a crazy example. A chat GBT is like an old school mom that wants to make sure that you're protected. I was writing-- this sounds really wanky, I'm sorry, but I was writing about the Roman historian, Suetonius. And there's a passage in Suetonius, where he talks about the Emperor Tiberius. And it's very sexually explicit. But I was quoting it for an article, so I wanted to know what it said. And chat GBT said, I can't translate the Latin for you, because this is too sexually problematic. I went out to Groc, and it did it straight away. Because Groc isn't saying that you are too delicate to read the stuff. And what's really funny about that is the old jewel translations of the old Roman and Greek texts that called Lurba editions. You get them from 1900. They translated everything except for the rubits, which they kept in Latin. So chat GBT is like the old patronizing scholars of A of old who said, this is just for the learned people. You can't learn this. Well, what was the first iteration of Google Gemini? That was the worst cases. That turned Nazi soldiers into black people. [LAUGHTER] I don't know how that's a positive message. So this-- The photos of German soldiers from World War II, and it was all interracial. Yeah, and Vikings. Yes. That's what they do. I mean, I don't know if you've been to Scandinavia. Diversity, not they big thing. Oh, certainly wasn't then. Like-- You can't say that about the Vikings. Also, the Vikings came and marauded and raped and set high villages, but at least they were diverse. Hey, at least they had a broad range of ethnicities. Right? But I mean, we're nearing a time in America where white people are not the majority anymore. So at what point in time does that stop? And we just call people what they are, just people. But doesn't it bother you a bit that the thing about that kind of thing is this-- as I said, this obsession with group identity, which is so of our time, what it now actually means is the revision of history. If you're going to revise history and say, oh, actually, you've seen all these sort of period dramas in England. There was a black Anne Berlin as I went to Henry VIII with a married, a black woman. No, you wouldn't. What if she was a heart? She was a very attractive woman. Hey, I'm not mocking her. I'm not mocking her. But back then. What I'm saying is you can do anything with colorblind casting has never really particularly bothered me. But it's when you are in a-- if you're playing hyper realism-- if you're playing very similar to you, you want people to buy into the reality of it. And you're suddenly populating Edwardian England or pre-Edwardian England as an ethnically diverse place, which it wasn't. I'm not saying black people weren't there, but they were very, very small miners. Is there another problem in the new Odyssey? Helen of Troy is black. Well, I say that. I just saw it online, so I might be being tricked by someone making something up. You know, I caveat that. I think Helen of Troy is black in the new Odyssey. Well, let's find out. Can we check that one? But you-- All right, if it's true, I'll tell you why I think that's ridiculous. How far do we have to swing the pendulum until roots is redone with white people? [LAUGHTER] Can you imagine? Or an all-black shindlers list? Right, right, right. Can you imagine Helen of Troy? I'm sure she'd be portrayed by black actress in the new Odyssey movie. And look, I'm sure she's very talented. I'm not knocking her. But the thing about Helen of Troy, who probably didn't exist-- I mean, even the Greeks knew she probably didn't even exist. She's a myth. She's the epitome of Greek beauty. She's like the-- she's described all the time in the ancient Texas fair and blonde. And they're reaching for an ideal of beauty. That's why they went to war because of this woman. So they wouldn't choose what they used to call an Ethiop. The Greeks had a word for it. The black African people. They wouldn't choose an icon of cultural beauty from a different culture. They wouldn't have done that.
You know, it's all very well saying Greeks and Mediterranean people and you know, wouldn't be pure white. But Helen of a choice, a very specific, and it's actually quite important to the plot. And again, if you're doing a, look, for instance, when they did the all black wizard of ours, the wiz, I imagine that in the late 60s would have been quite radical and fun and wow, I can't believe they did that. That's brilliant. But doing it now, it's really boring because everyone is doing it. So it's basically saying group identity is everything and you, you people can't be racist and so they're going to do this. But it sometimes throws you out of the, actually, I'll tell you the worst example. Did you ever see darkest hour, the Winston Churchill film? No. So you know, obviously he took on Parliament. He said, we're not going to appease Hitler. There's a scene in the film, Gary Oldman plays him. He goes down into the tube, the underground, and he's wrestling with his conscience. And there's loads of black people on the tube. There's white people too, but there's loads of black people. The public convinced him, no, you need to stand up for Hitler. Now, we know that Churchill wasn't, it was a bit of a racist, didn't really like the, you know, fine, he was obvious time. I'm not saying anything more than that. He was obvious time. But that, it was so unreal. It was so unreal, it was so, it was almost like the filmmakers were saying, racism's never been a problem in the UK. Well, actually it has. Like, and I kind of think this is, I kind of think this is, although it's ostensibly progressive, I think it does the reverse. I think it says, we never had a problem with race. We were all wonderful come by our, no, we weren't. And actually, the abolitionists, the, the Thomas Henry Huxley's of the world, the people who had to fight, get full racial equality and parity, they had something to fight against, misrepresenting stuff in the arts. And then beyond, I'm sorry, I'm running out, because it really bothered me, but beyond that, it throws you out of it in a way that you suddenly think, I'm no longer watching a film, I'm watching a sermon. Oh, so this happened to me last week. Have you seen the Netflix series Ripley about the talented Mr Ripley? No, I have not. Right. You remember they used to be that film with Matt Damon years ago? It's the same story, same novel, an old Patricia Heismith novel. One of the main male characters in that TV series, it's a brilliance, like Andrew Scott is in it. Performance is a brilliant, they play it hyper realistically. It's all black and white, it looks beautiful. On the Amalfi coast, it's wonderful. Everything's working brilliantly. And I was thinking, this is great. I'm not being preached at. This is great. Then a major male character turns up, played by a woman who calls herself non-binary. And not only are we meant to believe that that's a man, the characters don't notice that it's a woman in a man's club, in man's club. So we're meant to believe that these characters don't even, like not one, but Ripley doesn't say, why is she wearing a suit? Why is she wearing a suit? This is set in the 60s, by the way. So I think if they wanted to change the novel and create a kind of, you know, like one of those butch dikes of the day who used to go for sort of like a dress like Ellen? Yeah. And for the undroachiness, like those people have always existed. Why not change the character to make it a female character who likes, who likes looking like a man? Why not do that? Why tell us, you know, this is a man, you have to believe it's a man. She want to mean let it throw you out of the. It's crazy. I no longer believe in this act to stop watching it because I no longer believed in it. Well, I think the problem, the real problem, we're trying to shove that down people's throw, it's as it creates the opposite reaction. It creates homophobia, transphobia and racism because like it doesn't create it but it makes them feel like they have a point. Well, you've seen recently that the polls regarding gay rights in the US seem to be going down, Tomboley's support for gay rights, support for gay marriage. We've had I think a number of states trying to overturn the gay marriage legislation. And the reason for all of that I think is because being gay has been tied to this LGBTQIA identity-obsessed movement that has also involved the medicalisation of kids, sterilisation of kids, working in front of children, all of that stuff. And now people are saying, this is because you gave us gay marriage, this is because you let the gays marry. And because of that, you fill out all this other stuff, you've opened this box and everything else has tumbled out. And that's not true. That's not true because the fundamental point about the belief in gender identity is it is fundamentally anti-gay as a principle. Because what it says is, you know, I know I'm telling you something you already know, but like gay rights was predicated on the idea that there's a minority people in every society who are attracted innately to their own biological sex. If you say biological sex doesn't matter. And actually, you've got your attracted to a kind of gendered soul, you're attracted to an essence, you're attracted to how someone identifies. Well, first of all, you don't know gay people if you think that's the case. They're not attracted to how you see yourself. They know gay men, I don't want to be crude, no one to penis is, right? And they know how to sniff one out. Now I think this idea, this idea that they're attracted to the way that you perceive yourself nonsense. And not only that, then you get, you know, like in Australia at the moment, lesbians are not allowed to gather legally if there's a man who says he's a lesbian and wants to join them. That is against the law in Australia now. So you can't do that. What do you mean? So, the Australian Human Rights Commission rule that if you are, if you have an all female event, right? So like a lesbian gathering, maybe something like that, you have to include men who identify as women. Oh, God. Because otherwise you are discriminated. There was a woman who I interviewed on, I had a show in the UK on GB news up to recently. And I interviewed this woman called Sal Grover. And she's an Australian woman, used to write for Hollywood, I think. She created a woman's app, a woman's only app. And this was in the wake of me too, you know, so there's all that going on. And she wanted to create a space for women. And a guy called Roxanne Tickle, right? They always have these kind of stripper names. Is that a real name? Roxanne Tickle wanted to get on the app, which was called Giggle. So by the way, this court case is called Giggle versus Tickle. I'm not kidding. Boy. And he said, he got on the app. She kicked him off because it's a, it's a bloke in address. And he sued and won. And in the court case, the judge actually said sex is changeable. Well, it's not, no matter what a guy in a wig says. But she's now appealing and going through all the, all this stuff just because- Makes her a live hell and then discourages anybody else in the future from ever contesting anything like that. And, you know, not only that. I mean, we've just had the other day. Was he yesterday? Did you see the girl who was, you used to identify as Trowns, a girl called Fox Varian? There's just one, two million in the little suit, right? That's big because- It was 16 years old and they chopped her breasts off, which is fucking horrifying. It's a typical iceberg though. Especially if you have children, you realize like they change their, the way they think about things year to year. And if you, children are so malleable. It's like one of the delicate dances of being a parent is that you have to love them, but you don't want to steer them in any direction. You want to let them be their own person. Right. And, you know, it's like I tried to expose my children to a bunch of different things and find out what they enjoy. And what, if you do that, you find out that they're all different. They all like different stuff. They just gravitate towards different things. And if you are a domineering, overbearing mentally ill parent, you can convince your child almost anything, almost anything. I mean, this is how you get suicide bombers. This is- Yeah. Yeah. This is what it is because they're children. This is why you don't get 55 year old union guys who become suicide bombers. They're like, what? And of course, you know, I get 72 virgins? Yeah. What? Yeah. Like it's not going to work. But you can get young impressionable children and you can convince them of almost anything. Like convincing them that they're actually a woman in a man's body and don't you want to be a woman and let's get you on hormone blockers. Okay, mom. Yeah. And then all of a sudden, you're ruining this child's life. But also, I mean, there will be kids who are struggling with how they see themselves in the world. There's girls in particular who, you know, they're developing into women and they don't like the sexual attention they're getting. They love- This is the "Augiel Shrires" book. Right. So what? Especially autistic girls. So, well, that's another point. So, this is the other reason why I think the movement is essentially anti-gaming. Because, you know, the Tava Stop Pediatric Clinic in London, which was an NHS gender clinic, which has been closed as a result of the cast review, this report into pediatric gender care. They found there's a book by Hannah Barnes called "Time to Think" which found that between 80 and 90% of all adolescents referred to that clinic were same-sex attracted. So, they were either gay or lesbian or bisexual. Right. Now, that means you've effectively got gay conversion therapy going on. On the NHS. Right. And so, you know, I had, you know, I'm friends with a couple of lesbians who run the LGBT Alliance in London. They have an annual conference for gay rights and they're talking about gay rights, you know. These young non-binary identified people broke in unleashed locusts and crickets and insects, a plague of fucking locusts into a gay rights conference. Isn't that the sort of thing new enough? This used to do it. Right. Right. So, I mean, I, you know, I think you need to have sympathy with people and whatever they're going through, but don't tell a child if a child tells you, I think I'm in the wrong body. Don't say yes. Say, that's not possible. Human beings can't change sex, but let's explore psychotherapeutically what needs to happen. Let's look at Los Angeles, which is, in my opinion, one of the most mentally ill spots in this country. It's a very weird place. That's why you left. Well, I mean, I left for a bunch of reasons. Mostly, I really left because they were telling us we can't do comedy. Oh, yeah. Well, that was there. Closed down the comedy clubs in Texas was open. So, the primary reason and also restaurants and I just knew where it was going. But the point is, like Los Angeles is a very mentally ill place. Like, if you just. - I just looked at like just the sheer numbers of people that are medicated. - Yeah. - You fucked up. If that's the place that's dictating the tone for the rest of the world, that's dangerous. 'Cause these are a lot of people that just desperately want attention. They desperately want to get accepted. They have to go through the audition process so they have to change who they are to talk to the producers, to try to form themselves and something to be accepted. There's a disproportionate amount of trans kids that are involved in Hollywood families. It's a largely disproportionate. Some of them have two trans kids, three trans kids. It's like, what the fuck is going on here? This is not normal. This is not, this is not no influence whatsoever. This is, you're using that child as a virtue flag. You're flying that child as a trans flag in the front of your porch. I have a trans kid. - But do you think that a lawsuit like this, that's gonna change things? 'Cause no one's gonna ensure that kind of procedure anymore. No one's, that's a surgeon and a psychotherapist who are now lumbered with a $2 million bill. - Yes, it's gonna be a negative. - And all the blood gates for all these other lawyers to start pouncing on all these other cases. - That's what I mean. - The thing about the horrible thing about these cases is not just that these children have, have their lives ruined by these surgeries and have been sterilized. And it's also that they've been attacked so ruthlessly. You mean you're talking about children that have made a mistake or someone coerced them into making this mistake that's changed their body for the rest of their life and they're getting attacked online. You imagine being a fragile child already who's willing to go through this procedure, can't believe they did it. Now they don't have breasts anymore. Their voice is deep forever. They're all fucked up. And then people are screaming at them online. - Yeah, it's crazy. - But you know, this is how the satanic child abuse panic of the '80s. - Yes, exactly. - And this came to an end because of lawsuits. When they started, when they realized that these psychotherapists have been using these leading questions, effectively telling them you've repressed the memory, you know, there was that book The Courage to Heal where it said, "If you think you might have been abused, you probably were." Like such a reckless thing to say. - Right. - And all these people accused, carers, parents, none of it was true. And, but when they started suing, the psychotherapist, it all collapsed. And I wonder whether hysteria can collapse if you actually money talks. - Well, I'm sure I shifted in this general direction because of Elon buying Twitter. When Elon bought Twitter, the amount of trans-identified kids started to drop off. The amount of non-binary identified kids started to drop off. And then I think is a direct result of people being able to say what they really think. 'Cause in the past, like my friend Megan Murphy, she was banned off of Twitter until Elon bought it because she said a man is never a woman. - Right. - It's all she said. A man is never a woman. She was arguing with people about biological males who identify as women being able to get into women's spaces and she said a man is never a woman. Banned forever. So no one wanted to talk about this. See, there was no real discourse. And if there's no real discourse, then you can push a goofy ideology pretty fucking far. But as soon as people jump on board and start posting funny memes and Elon says, "It's open season, do whatever you want." And he calls it the woke mind virus and everybody's like piling in, "Well then you have discourse." And then anything that's absurd immediately gets shot down because people say, "No, this doesn't make any sense. This is crazy." - You know what I'm saying? - You said about debate, you said about discourse. You said about, "Unless you, I mean, I just saw today, just on, obviously on Twitter 'cause I'm always on it." But I saw John Lithgow, the actor, brilliant actor, who plays Dumbledore in the new Harry Potter thing, saying that J.K. Rowling's views are inexplicable. inexplicable, it means you haven't read them. Like J.K. Rowling is a four women's rights and she recognizes that women's rights depend on the recognition of biological sex for the preservation of single sex spaces. It's as simple as that. All he has to do is read the essay she wrote on a blog about about eight years ago. He can't even, he's not even sufficiently intellectual, pure intellectual curious to do that. And he goes out and says, "It's inexplicable. Women's rights and gay rights are inexplicable, really? Or are you just not having the conversation? You're just shutting yourself up and saying, "My friends have said she's evil, not enough." Criticized hard enough, but would be criticized if he supported J.K. Rowling's. If he supported J.K. Rowling's, he would be attacked. So it's a calculation yourself. Yes. Maybe. It's the same thing we're talking about with Hollywood being mentally ill. It's the same thing where you have to shape your opinions based on how you'll be accepted by the group. It's the most group think place I've ever been in my life. It's almost universally left leaning. But isn't that the problem in comedy, like with the U.K. So many people who would otherwise be innovative subversive comics, they've got nowhere to go. So they just tailor their material. When they've come to Austin Bay. They come to Austin like I did, right? That's it. They come to, they come to, I get so sick of it 'cause I know in America it's much better. But in the U.K., all of my old friends from the comedy circuit who tell me, no one's self-sensoring, you can say what you want. I'm like, are you kidding? The list of people I know who have had shows canceled, taken off because they caused a fence. This week Leo Kurs, friend of mine, had one of his shows on his tour, just deleted because some activists complained to the venue. Right? - Yeah. So it's happening all the time. And they're ignoring this Himalayan a mountain of evidence. And they're saying it's not a thing. But of course people are self-sensoring. - What's even happening here? - Is it? - Michael Rappaport got his shows, he got a shows canceled from Cap City Comedy Club. Which is our other comedy club in town. Which is a great club owned by Helium. But they were saying that he's racist because Michael Rappaport is very pro Israel. - Right. - And apparently-- - Why does that make you racist? - I don't know what he said. So I don't want to speak out of turn. I don't know what exactly he said. - Make a small correction I think. - Oh. - I don't think that she has been, sorry, back to the Odyssey thing. - Oh yeah, yeah. - Helium has been cast in the movie, but only Twitter rumors have said what her position in the movie is and then everybody has ran with it. - Oh, interesting. So she could be-- - She could be anything. - Someone else. - So this-- - A different character. - All the articles I found online said it was like social media confirmation and then people were just running-- - Well there we go. Well, isn't that what I said? - What is that article that you just clicked? - This is the one I showed earlier. - But what is it from? - Starts off with the Hungarian conservative. (laughing) - That's a niche. That's a niche. - How dare you let that sneak by? - You didn't notice it was a Hungarian conservative-- - Are you being paid by the Hungarian conservative? - Top thing that popped up. - Meanwhile, it's probably a fucking troll farm in Pakistan that's creating that. It's probably in China. - All I Googled was Helen and Troy Odyssey movie and it was a very first out of the-- - Good for the Hungarian conservative. - That's so funny. - Coming out on top of the Google search. That's pretty good. - That's so funny. - But I did I not say, I'm not sure about this. It's a Twitter rumor. - But look, Elon Musk bought into it. - Elon Musk is Christopher Nolan has lost his integrity. (laughing) - It's not spread so far. - Oh, Elon. - So there we go. - The dude's too busy building rockets to pay attention to what he tweeted. (blastening) - But this proves the point. Like let's not, oh yeah, he's gonna text to the moon again. So, you know, that's how he-- - He's not. - Isn't he? - No, Artemis is now so-- - I thought he was working with NASA. - Oh, is he working with NASA with Artemis? - Again, that someone said it online and I just bought it. - Oh, well, they probably can't get there without him. - But that's probably like, oh, short of some things. But that's, okay, so that is a perfect example because I am always now, even when I mentioned that earlier, I was cautious, wasn't I? Because I know, I've fallen for this so many times. I know double check and triple check. - Yeah. - Everything. And I wish I didn't have to, but you do have to, because even the mainstream media lie about stuff. And then Twitter rumors go absolutely mad. - Well, it's important when you're talking about a historical film. - Yeah, yeah. - Look, it's got a kind of, you just can't do that. It doesn't make any sense. - Well, you sort of can't. I think an artist should be able to do what they want. And I think if you want to, like they do it with Shakespeare all the time, sorry to go about Shakespeare, but you rarely go and see a Shakespeare play today that hasn't been filtered through the prism of identity politics and changed in-- - Right, but that's not the same. That's not the same as historical figures. - Well, he wrote histories. He wrote about Kings, Henry V, Seventh, Henry V. - Yeah, but it's fiction. - Right? Like the thing about the Odyssey is-- - That's definitely fiction. - It is sort of, but they didn't think Troy existed, and then they found out it does. - Right, so it's real. - It's based on-- - Right, and yeah, that's true. - But you remember, they thought that Troy was a completely mythological creation. - So it's an actual, they have evidence that it was a place. - Yes. You didn't know that? - No. - Yeah, they found it. When did they find Troy? It was in the 20th century. - For the longest time. - But there wouldn't have been sirens, and there wouldn't have been psychopsies. And there wouldn't have, you know what I mean? - Oh, no. - Oh, Joe. - No, psychopsies, they think were actually elephant skulls. That's what they think that was. - Right, okay. - Do you ever see an elephant skull? - I have never seen an elephant skull. - Well, you know, where the trunk is is in an elephant skull. And they thought that was an eyeball. So they would find these giant skulls with that looked like, you know, they didn't know what the fuck it was. - Yeah, yeah. - And I'm like, oh my god, psychopsies are real. - Fair enough. I mean, so here it is. - So I guess-- - So here it is. - So here it is. - Henrik Schleelman discovered large scale excavations at the Hisara Lake in northwestern Turkey in 1870. So when did they first start excavating? - So where is it? - It's in Turkey. - It's in Turkey, yeah. - Okay. - Which is a lot of the proponents of a revising of the beginning of civilization. for now.
pointing to Turkey as opposed to like Iraq and the Greeks are everywhere. Yeah. So the Mesopotamians and the, I mean that doesn't surprise me. I think the point I was making about Hellen of choice, even if it's not real, even if it's not history, the myth of Hellen of Troy means something quite significant within that story. Yeah. So if you subvert that, the fundamental aspects of the story itself doesn't work and you can't buy into the myth. So if you turn the elephant man into a handsome fellow with a six pack. Exactly that. Don't give them ideas. Don't give them ideas that they do. Um, can you show me a photograph of an elephant skull? It's really cookie. See, but you see an elephant skull and you're like, oh, that's why they saw it. I could totally see you falling for that. Yeah. You look at it and you go, what the fuck is that thing? Like looking at an elephant skull. Isn't it, Nadi? Oh completely. Yeah. And it's going to be a big old beast. Right. So you're going to think it's a big giant thing with tusks coming out of its mouth. Look, look, look with the, look at the actual cyclops on the left. Isn't that crazy? Yeah. Of course. Now it makes sense. Makes complete sense. Complete sets. Yeah. Yeah. You found that. You're like, oh my god. Cyclops is a real. You would think, oh my god, these monsters. Not funny. What a weird shaped skull. So strange. But we never think the eyeballs would be down there by the cheekbones. That's what's weird about them. I have to say elephant anatomy is something I'm not, I'm brushed up on that. Show the photo again. Look at that photo where the eyeballs are. The eyeballs are where the cheekbones are. See the little circular holes where the cheeks are. Now when you see an elephant in the flesh, like show me a photograph of an elephant. Just an elephant. So. Oh, we said yes. See where their eyeballs are. And that's crazy. That's not how you think of them. Is it? No, well, they're so strange. On that. Like you get that second one on the left. Yeah, look at that. Click on that. Wow. The animal. They're amazing. Have you never seen one of those before? You'd be like, oh, in a zoo. Crazy. Yeah. I rode one in Thailand. No. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don't recommend it. I don't think I should ride them. My whole family wanted to do it. I didn't want to do it. I felt like it's exploiting them. But they're very sweet. They're gentle. Yeah. I wasn't pleasant. It's a whole process. So one of the things you do when you go to Thailand is you take care of them first. Before you, you don't just hop on them. You feed them. Right. So you give them a bunch of sugar cane and you pet them. And they teach you to like so that the animal understands you have a gentle spirit. But that it's intelligence, right? It's because they're smart. They're very smart. It's also they'll fucking kill you. Oh, they are scary beasts. But they're not like the hippo. The hippo will kill you. You cannot do that with a hippo. So and I believe the reason why hippos are so dangerous, we think they're really cute and fat, but they are fucking dangerous and they can run fast and they can tell you apart. And they will. The key difference I believe is the intelligent things. Elephants are really smart and hippos are really stupid. Yeah. And you can also become friends with an elephant. Yes. Like you can actually take care of an elephant and be kind to an elephant and that elephant will like be gentle. Yeah, they come up to you and so you feed them sugar cane and you talk to them say, Hey, buddy, how are you? You pet them and you wash them. You wash them. You do all kinds of different things with them. You brush them so it feels good for them. You're going to have an elephant soon, aren't you? No, I would never have an elephant. I'd be friends with an elephant, but you have to be wild. Like I just don't agree with any of that. Well, having them in zoos and things. No, I hate it. I do as well. I think if you're going to have animals, you should have a gigantic area that is a true ecosystem that they exist in naturally. Yeah. And then people can maybe venture into that ecosystem and explore it. I felt that I was at the zoo recently in Arizona. I felt that there was one jaguar pacing obsessive. I just felt this it was just like it's like going to you know, like in the Elizabethan era, they used to go to bedlam to watch the people who were mad as an entertainment thing. It felt a little bit like we were doing that. I have far too much appreciation for the wild. Yeah, yeah. You know, I have animals that are contained at my house, but they have been watered down by selective breeding to the point where they can't even like I have a King Charles Spaniel. He's just tiny little fella. Yeah. Like he's incapable of doing anything. Right. Like he's just a little cutie pie. You can't unleash him into the wild. Right. And I have a golden retriever who thinks everybody's his best friend. Like did you see the guy who kept a hippo from birth and then it ate him. And then it killed him. It ate him. Yeah. So you know, like not annoyed. Understand that you're dealing with a creature that doesn't see the world that you do. You know. Yeah. There's a lot of animals that you can breed up until you can rather have them in your home, champs famously. Yeah. Yeah. I've been to a certain point and then they decide I want to rip your face off. I don't like you anymore. Oh, I'm sure if cats were as big as we are, they'd probably do the same. Well, they would just eat you. They would they would kill you 100%. The only reason why we have a relationship with cats is because they're too small to eat us. Yeah. That's it. Cats are great because they're convenient. They do what they want. They're sweet. That's sweet. I love cats, but I mean, you can't have a fucking giant one. But you can if you take care of them from the time that they're cubs. Yeah. And most of the time, they don't kill you. Yeah. But then you get a little sick, freed and Roy action. And it's just the sides for whatever reason. I'm going to drag that dude away with his neck. Yeah. But you know, these these sorts of pleasures, you know, life with animals and this sort of thing is going to matter more and more to us, I think when the robots take over. Yeah. And the yeah. Well, we might have to live with them. Well, we might be wild and the robots might take over the cities. We might be forced to be nomadic tribes again. I think they might see us. No impact whatsoever on the environment. You can only live a assistance lifestyle as a hunter gatherer with primitive tools when the robots will no longer allow you. You can hunt, but you have to make your own bows and arrows. We're like, what? I can't possibly do that. So they're going to see us as pets. Yeah. They're going to treat us the way I want to treat elephants. So I want elephants to exist in a contained ecosystem where they live naturally. Yeah. And they're going to say you can't have cars anymore. You can't have any of these things. Well, that's a good point. There wasn't it. So all the stuff I've been reading at the moment about AI is saying that AI won't wipe us out because it will see us in the way we see animals and we see pets is that we think you're sweet and stupid, but we're like having around. We'll tolerate you. Is that the way it's going to go? I think we're going to be forced to integrate. In a way. Integrate technologically. Like I think we already are. Like Elon's famously made the point that you're already a cyborg. You have your phone that you just carry around with you everywhere. And then with neural ink, it'll be inside your body and then whatever I wouldn't. I'm not letting that happen. You won't in the beginning. The first iterations. A lot of people won't, but if it makes your life measurably better and it's a simple procedure that's non-invasive, you know, it's like a simple thing that they plug in to your back. Well, I'd be like a cyborg warrior. I'd have like a. Well, you would probably be connected to artificial intelligence and it would greatly enhance your cognitive function. Okay. And greatly enhance your access to information. It would be instantaneous. You would no longer have to read. You would just have all the information. It would just completely change the way store information because you would probably have some sort of an external hard drive that connects to you. It would be something where your memory is no longer fallible, but it's now infallible. Okay. It's going to be a perfect 4K memory or 8K memory. You're going to be able to rewind. I mean, it was not an episode of Dark Mirror where they rewind their memories. And you're going to be able to check out what is this AI space. Remember, you sent me that bot thing that was going around this week. Yeah. Oh, did you see this week? Yeah, this is what we're talking about. So this is a new twist on it. I think if this is real, because grain assault could be bullshit. I'll just say that. Like the Aldousy thing. Yeah. But if this is real, these bots have made a website where they where the other bots can rent a human to do tasks that the bots cannot physically do. Well, that's slavery. No, renting. It's like jobs. It's like a renting a human being. A human has put themselves on this website. Oh, humans put themselves on it. For abilities to do whatever they want. It's like gig economy. Yeah, get paid your way. Robot bosses. Is this the thing where the robots are inventing their own language that we can't read? It's on this website, right? Meet space tasks. Yeah, I don't that's again, whether or not someone could have made this site to try to go viral. I'll just go with a grain assault with that. Yeah, but they might not have in the space. Renton human dot AI is fun. That's fun. Well, you know, the so the other thing is real though, right? The AI chat room where these AI agents have joined and now yes, and no. Yes, I know what you mean? Some of it they are creating a space, but I've already seen places where people are taking advantage of it for viral reasons. For instance, I'll just assume it's real. There was like a polymarket bet that so shit, what was it? Someone one of these bots would sue. Right. So someone actually just like when I had fought a lawsuit on behalf of their bot and made it look like the bot did the thing. Oh, so they can win the polymarket bet. Yeah, exactly. How regulated is that polymarket stuff? Because it seems like you could get away with a lot. It depends on much money is available. As far as I know, it's just like if I put up 20 bucks for a bet now, there's only 20 bucks in the market. Yeah, that's that's all that exists and more people have to back it up to make more money involved. Right, but if you have something where you have inside knowledge of it, is there any regulation? They're supposed to be like, they're supposed to be rules on the bets. If I create one of those rules, you're supposed, I think there's a caveat. You can't have knowledge of it and or like that can cancel the bet or I think if they find out later, I don't know. Is you good at jail? What happens? No, jail. You probably just have to lose back the bet or you could probably go to like a civil lawsuit or something. I don't know about it. Interesting. I don't know if it's an in-laws. You know, the UFC is plagued with this issue. They actually canceled a fight recently because there was suspicious betting and so there's been one fight. So here's the story. Okay. One guy apparently was injured and his teammates knew he was injured and so everyone started placing
a bet for him to lose in the first round. Right. Because he apparently had a bad knee injury. And so he knew that he couldn't fight. And so the idea was, let's make a lot of money betting on me because he was the favorite. He would go in there or betting against me. And so he would go in there and throw a kick, fall down, injured, get beat up. They'd stop the fight. And then all these people that knew he was injured make a ton of money. And he was in on it. Like he told them that. I just want to say it all over again. But it's enough so that the team was removed from the UFC roster. Like if you are competing for that team, you no longer can fight in the UFC. You have to find a new gym. The coach was no longer allowed to coach. The fighter was banned. And so then the FBI got involved and they said, well, there's a bunch of different fights that are suspicious. So then a bunch of fighters came out and said, hey, somebody offered me $70,000 to lose. And I said no. And so then there was a fight recently between Michael Johnson and Alexander Hernandez, which is what the fighter was really looking forward to. There was canceled last minute and I was like, what's going on? They said suspicious betting activity. And so someone was saying that Alexander Hernandez was injured and a bunch of money came on him to lose. He was actually a favorite going into the fight. And that therefore made rigged it. Nope. Didn't rig it because the FBI was informed. I believe they were informed, but the UFC was informed and the UFC pulled the fight. So they said because of this suspicious betting activity, because a lot of late minute money came in on this one guy to win, we're going to pull this fight from the card and not allow this fight to take place and do a thorough investigation. Okay. Because something seems wrong because of the previous fight that they know was fixed. But fighters have been doing that for ages, haven't they? I mean, that's the thing that they've always done. Yeah. How does that connect them to the AI element that this website? Well, we were talking about betting. Oh, I see. We were talking about polymarketing. We were talking about AI. We were talking about polymarket bets, whether or not it's legal to have inside information. But I mean, I know the problem. Polymarket privilege users made millions betting on war strikes and diplomatic strategy. What did they know beforehand? Privileged users, right? So imagine if you're someone who's an aide to Pentagon, you know, you're working there and you know that we are going to bomb Iran. And then there's a polymarket thing about it. No one else knows. Okay, okay, yes. You know, I mean, that's been going on forever though, hasn't it? People have always done that. They've always manipulated. That's a plot in pulp fiction, isn't it? Where Bruce Willis is character bets on something he knows. He loses the fight. He loses throws a fight so that he can make the money off. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's that kind of thing. Yeah. But that's always gone on. But this polymarket thing is new because you can kind of, there's Kalshi and then there's draft kings has it now. That's not actually gambling as the difference here. You're speculating. Yeah, you're not talking about it. Right. Or whatever you're adding against each other. Okay. But the fact that they know about it and they know it's happening, that means they're able to crack down on it. But I don't know because there's so many options and possibilities. Like unless you make a gigantic score and people start getting suspicious, if you're not greedy about it, you can sneak around a little bit here and a little bit there. I bet you could probably make a lot of money doing that. But you think fighters and people like that and sports people generally. I mean, they're too proud, aren't they? It's something like that go just for money. No. No, that's not true. Okay. Depends on how much money they're making. Look, if you're Anthony Joshua, I'd say, yeah, you're not going to do that. You're very wealthy. But if you're a guy who's on the undercard and you're only getting $10,000 to fight, but someone's giving you $100,000 to lose. Yeah. Okay. And you say, okay, I'm just going to box shitty tonight. The guys have done that forever. Yeah. I guess so. I just don't knock this guy out, whatever you do, carry him or carry him to the 10th round. Yeah. So, you're going on where they say, I have a bet that you're going to knock him out in the 10th round. So, knock him out in the 10th round only. I don't think you'll ever be able to stop that. No. If that's going to happen. No, I don't think so either. I mean, that's gone on forever. Yeah. But isn't fighting like a kind of vocation, like a creative vocation for a lot of people? Well, it is creative, believe it or not, because movement is creative. Yeah. You know, when you're fighting, you're not just running at each other and some guys do, but they're really good guys. Don't just run at each other in charge. There's faints and deception, there's movement, there's certain things that they're doing, where they're reading your movement and trying to guide you in a particular direction and set you up. Like, boxes. I can believe it. Bonsers called setting traps. Yeah. It's like playing, you're going to bluff. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, there's a lot of fainting involved in fighting. There's a lot of fake movement to get you to react and they kick you when you settle in. You know, it's really creative. You know, it's just why like, was it fade down a way? No, was it, who was it that said, you know, that the older woman that said it and we're talking about the arts and I don't mean mixed martial arts. God, who was it? Like a kind of snow-bush thing. Ben close. Ben close. No, it wasn't her. It was the lady from Bridges of Madison County. Who is that? That's a Marl Street. Marl Street, that's who it was. Yeah, Marl Street said that. It was like, it pissed off so many martial arts people. Why? Because she's not talking about mixed martial arts. Like, who thought you were? Yeah, who thought you were, Marl? That's crazy. I know she's pretty versatile. She can do it. But also, even though it's violent, you think it's not art. You're just because you don't understand it. If you understood it, it is art and it is in fact like a beautiful, some performances are beautiful. Like, choreography, right? Yeah. Well, it's not choreography at all. It's ad-libbing in the moment. There's preconceived motions that you have that you're hoping that if the guy does this, you're going to do that and sometimes it works out. But it's like the poetry of movement of a really sublime fighter. Like, Anderson Silva in his prime was beautiful to watch. I believe you. I very limited experience of this. I did Kung Fu when I was 12 and I stopped. Because I got so bruised. Oh. I got so hurt. I was too cowardly. But, you know, people imposed their own standards on other people and their own ideas of what things are, you know, from the outside and, you know, it's kind of silly. Oh, Joe, I was going to tell you about this Berkeley thing. And I almost said that. That's right. That's right. We got onto Elephants. But I think there's a natural segue. Because I think this encapsulates all of the stuff you were talking about, which is that I was going to this, basically, Charlie Kirk's tour, which meant to go on. He was the last date. And Rob Schneider had agreed to do it. And apparently he'd said to Charlie, you know, what's the craziest place you could take me to? And he said, Berkeley, Berkeley's going to be the crazy, let's do that. So he was already booked to do it. After what happened with Charlie, Rob asked me if I'd come along as well. And we would say we'd be on a panel. And I had no idea of the extent of the problem, right? So, and I'm sure you know, a lot more than I do. You know, but I turned up. We turned up and there were men with guns, we were in an SUV under the ground. We got into this venue. And suddenly the security start showing me footage from outside. And people are, it's like a war zone. People are throwing smoke bombs. They're trying to crash through the railings. Some guy gets beaten up. He's covered in blood because he was wearing a t-shirt with turning point written on it. And I'm suddenly realising, you know what? This is a fantasy world that we're now occupying. We're now occupying a world where the people outside think the world is this. And what's going on inside is completely disconnected from it. And I actually found it quite depressing. Because when I was sitting on stage talking to Rob and Peter Pagosian and Frank Turek, these people of completely different viewpoints, we're just having a chat. Outside, they're smashing things, they're screaming. They're saying that fascists have overrun the university. And I'm thinking just to come back to that point you made about, you know, that need to discuss, for discussion. That experience may be thinking actually now what's happening is we're like, we're living in two separate worlds at the same time. And we can't see what the other side is, what the intentions of the other side are. And I don't know how you resolve that. I think that's, that to me sort of encapsulated the entire problem. Well, at this point, it's going to be very difficult to resolve. And I honestly think it's going to take a generation to work through it. But isn't it as simple as people learning what the word fascist means, for instance? Just like that. It's like they firmly believe that they are trying to fight against something that is going to destroy democracy in this country, which is conservative values. But we had that with the no kings, there's a no kings march. And I couldn't figure that out. I was trying to figure out what are they, this is an elected leader. Well, you know it's all organized, right? You know, this is all funded. I don't know. Okay, it is. So, this was Mike Benz's point when he was talking about the defunding of USAID and what they use that money for. And Geo's get a bunch of money and they fund a bunch of things, particularly in other countries, where they're essentially making it look like there's these on the ground street protests that are very organic. Right. But it's not. It's very organized and it's very funded. And the idea is to start chaos. So, I've seen people get caught out, people who are clearly being paid who appear at various different things. It's not just that. This also email campaigns, it's indoctrinating people into this particular ideology by supporting university so you've funded it in advance. Yeah. So, it's like decades of, and this is, I'm sure you've seen the Russian guy from 1984, 1985, Yuri Besmanov talking about the. Remind me. You never seen it? I don't think I've seen it. It's a wonderful video because it shows you exactly what happened. Now, they're going to introduce Marxism and Lendism into universities and then it'll indoctrinate children and then they'll. children will be poisoned and within one generation it'll ruin the United States's entire educational system. So that's the law. Yeah, that's the law. Yeah, but you should watch a little bit. Okay, because it's crazy because back then I remember the 1980s. That would be a crazy idea. No, universities are where people have free thought and discussion. It's very important. Yeah, yeah. You know, and I was in a very left-leaning place at the time. I was living in Boston, you know, and it was like probably more universities per capita than anywhere else in the country, at least at the time. And it was a very well-read city. Like the idea that universities are going to destroy the way human beings interact and debate is like preposterous. But this guy was talking about this back then that the Soviets had planned this in advance and that they had essentially subverted our entire education system and thereby what those people would leave those schools indoctrinated and enter into the workforce with these new ideas in universal acceptance of these ideas are correct. And then it would in turn, you know, the butterfly effect. But do you think that everyone I don't I can't be sure that it has conspiratorial is that because there must be a lot of, you know, people who just got on board. Well, there's a lot of money involved in doing this. Right. There's a lot of funds that have come from China. There's a lot of money that has been donated to these universities. Like find that video. I found it, but there's like a second version on Twitter. I've never seen before an AI moderated. No, no, no, it's just like it's now in a wig. Oh, I recognize him. So listen to what he says. Is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion or active measures, actively mere priyatia in the language of the KGB or psychological warfare. What it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite of their abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country. It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and it's divided in four basic stages. The first one being demoralization. It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years which requires to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of the enemy. In other words, Marxism, Leninism, ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism, American patriotism. The result, the result you can see, most of the people who graduated in the 60s dropouts or half baked intellectuals are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black. You still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. In other words, these people, the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To get rid society of these people, you need another 20 or 15 years to educate a new generation of patriotically minded and common sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of the United States society. And yet these people who have been programmed and, as you say, in place and who are favorable to an opening with the Soviet concept, these are the very people who would be marked for extermination in this country. Most of them yes. Simply because the psychological shock, when they will see in future, what the beautiful society of equality and social justice means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy for straight people. And Marxist Leninist regime does not tolerate these people. They obviously they will join the links of dissenters, dissidents. Unlike in present United States, they will be no place for dissent in future Marxist Leninist America. Here you can get popular like Daniel Ellsberg and filthy rich like Jane Fonda for being dissident, for criticizing your Pentagon. In future, these people will be simply squashed like cockroaches. Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful, noble ideas of equality. This they don't understand and it will be greatest shock for them, of course. The demoralization process in United States is basically completed already. For the last 25 years, actually it's overfulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where previously not even converted on drop of and on all his experts would would even dream of such a tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures. Even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom. When a military boat crashes, then he will understand, but not before that, that's the tragic of the situation of demoralization. Okay, so pretty fucking accurate. Well, he's describing the situation as it is at the moment, right? And he's describing it in 1984. However, that doesn't prove that intention to create that kind of chaos, that it was implemented and executed in the way that he describes. He's describing the outcome. He's a KGBHM. Yeah, but I suppose what I mean by that is he's talking about a program that they implemented. So they had actual people in universities planted in universities to deliberately execute this idea? Yeah, and they planned it in advance. This is what he was saying. And he was saying this before we even realized that it happened. I agree that's scary. It is scary because it did happen. That doesn't fully explain why it caught on. Why did academics who were clearly not plants? Why did they catch on with this? Well, they don't live in the fucking real world. That's the problem with academics. They go right from universities to teaching positions. I mean, they don't have any real world experience. I mean, this whole idea of the long march through the institutions is there in Ruta, Dorchko, it's there. It was said we're going to do this. We're going to infiltrate the major organizations, institutions, the church. We're going to, over a very long period of time, change society in the way that we want to see it. I think what's happened is, I think that intention was there. I think what he's saying is very eerily describing what's happening now. The demoralization and the detachment from truth. But I don't think it necessarily came about as systematically as that. I think you think it came about. I think, well, for one thing, I think what we're facing now isn't quite the template that Marx would have had in mind, right? Because for one thing, there's no emphasis on class or money or the economy or anything. Well, in Safari's Marxism has become about group identity in terms of the left. Right, substitute. The rich is a giant mantra that people can't understand the streets. That's true. That's true. It's a tax billionaires. But it's in coherent because it's from people who've got money. It's from the upper middle class. It's coherent. It's all just something the narrative that you give the unwashed masses. And then they run with it. Well, I wonder whether it caught on partly through what became fashionable, what became trendy. But also because any ideology says to you don't have to do anything anymore, you can outsource us to that to us. You've got a set of rules. And these are the rules that you've got. It's why you've got people who are, well, it's why you've got queers for Palestine. That can only exist when you're following a set of rules and not thinking about it for two seconds. That's a wonderful group. I actually thought that was fake when I first heard about it, which must be about five years. You've seen the other meme. I thought it was unreal. Which one? Palestine and then Palestine for queers. Oh, and I imagine. It's wrong people off the roof. Of course they are. Of course they are. I just say go and do go go there and see what you see what you see. See what you experience. Go there as a man in a dress wearing lipstick with a beard. Good luck. Yeah, I just did a Titania tweet of a drag queen touring the Middle East. And she's, you know, she's touring all these venues. And she's got this sort of Palestine dress and then the sort of the glam kind of Arabic look. It's like just just go there and see what happens. But that kind of cognitive dissonance can only work if you are, if you are ideologically driven. And I think, so I suppose what I mean is I think the appeal of ideology is what is what explain not a kind of we've implanted these agents here. They're going to lead to this. It has to also be complicity from a that comes from implanting ideas. But is this those ideas take hold and then group think takes it from there? But isn't it ashamed that universities of all places, the place where you go to be challenged in the world?
the place where you go, I mean, I was thinking that when I was at Berkeley and I, you know, I was sitting on the stage and there's all these men with guns all around the theatre because of course what happened with Charlie. And I'm thinking, it's like the end of the Blues Brothers, you know, where you're on stage and all the people are waiting and the way it felt weird. And I thought this is not, this is not what a university is or should be. And the other thing that I thought is a lot of those people outside protesting weren't students. They'd sort of come in, they'd been bust in. So maybe that feeds into what you were saying about, you know, one. The hundred percent. Planned and got out. How are they getting bust in? Who's funding them? Right. People are paying a lot of money to do that. Right. And they're doing it all over the country. But they did it during the presidential elections. Yeah. During the presidential elections, they were tracking cell phones from place to place. Right. And they realized that there was a group of people that were paid attendees at Kamala Harris's rally. Oh, yeah, I remember that. So they were getting paid. Their job was to show up and cheer for Kamala Harris. Do you think fundamentally then the Democrats are anti-democratic? I think fundamentally anybody that doesn't have organic support is going to figure out a way in this environment to drum it up. Right. And if you can do that through a service or if you can do that through an NGO or if you can do that through a company that'll hire people to show up at your rallies, they do it because they want to win and they want to get into a position of power. And one of the things that we do find with Trump is that it actually turns out the president could do a lot. Yeah. Yeah. You know, and we used to think that they were kind of handcuffed and they weren't able to do as much and that's why nothing ever got done. Turns out that doesn't seem to be true. You get a maniac in office and you can kind of get away with a lot of things. You can do a lot of different things. That's what we still need in the UK. We need someone to come in and strip away. I mean, but we need what Bezmanov was saying is that we need to kind of a whole generation that teaches that being patriotic and having morals and ethics is actually a good thing. And that free speech is important and that to be able to debate ideas is essential to any sort of true society that considers itself an elevated, absolutely modern version of what we hope for when this country was founded. Yeah. And it wasn't founded on the idea that you have to adhere to one ideology and this ideology thinks that gender is not real and no one can answer what a woman is. Like, that's crazy. Well, that's become popular. Well, we see in America like America is the kind of life after the world that you've got all these things built into your political system. Yeah. And that's quite so scary when you see people. Do you remember the vice presidential debate between JD Vance and Tim Waltz? And Tim Waltz said that the first amendment doesn't cover hate speech. It doesn't cover misinformation. Exactly. Is it dangerous? Fuck that. Like that's scary. If the guy who might be vice president is saying actually we're going to strip out all of this stuff. Also, just the way he behaves is so odd. The way he waves and runs on stage. It's all just so fake and performative. Yeah. I don't know any men like that that aren't dangerous. Why was he picked? Well, because of the Minnesota stuff, it probably had something to do with what he was allowing to happen in Minnesota. Well, I think you get money. You get money. Right. Yeah. Maybe. But there's a reason why he had to resign. I mean, I'm clearly speculating. I have no idea. And I'm more on when it comes to politics. But what I would assume is that for sure he was informed of this fraud long in advance. If it wasn't for that Nick Shirley kid and those videos and apparently Nick Shirley had been informed by the GOP there that this was all going on. So this gets exposed. It gets into the public zeitgeist. It becomes a huge news story. It's not a coincidence that the riots break out in the exact same place where all this fraud is being exposed. Because ISIS everywhere. Yeah. They're all over the place. But it's not the most violent interactions are the interactions that are happening in the place where the most fraud has been publicly exposed. So this is all by design. There's something very scary about this guy. This guy knew about it in advance. How do we know? Well, one way we know is because he's resigning. So he must be something. Right. He's not running for governor again. He was in the process of running for governor. He's decided to step out of public office entirely now. So maybe they told him if you do not step out, you were going to be prosecuted. We know what you did. Or maybe he's going to fucking turn state evidence. Who fucking knows. Imagine if he had of one. He would have been in charge of me. God. I don't think I would have come here. But what if Elon doesn't buy Twitter and Kamala Harris wins and Tim Wallace is our vice president? Well, doesn't that just tell you how fragile freedom is? How close you are. Very fragile. That's why people support Donald Trump. And the people that think that they support him because he's a racist and all these different things. No, no, no. They support him because it's an alternative to what we all saw coming. Yeah, you know, like no one's excited that ISIS killing people in the streets. No one, no one likes that. No, of course. You have to be fucking insane if you think those people should be just getting shot like that. That's nuts. But what they don't want is what the government was previously doing. They had a completely open border. They were busing people into swing states. They were trying to pretend that this was all organic and it's not. It's not. It's, it's, they had a plan. And they did it in a sneaky way where they looked like the really kind, ethical, equitable and inclusive crowd. Right. Well, that's the white story all over again. It was the woke stories applied to geopolitics. It was a woke stories applied to the whole political process in this country was dependent upon the census, which the census doesn't count citizens. The census just counts humans. Yeah. And so you get more congressional seeds. You get more electoral points. The whole thing is nuts. I mean, I like to think that no old Democrats are into that. No, no, no, no, no, Democrats are about the power for itself. Of course not. But the problem is it's a party. Like if you work for a corporation and you're a good person, but the corporation is promoting polluting a river in Guatemala. Yeah. There's a diffusion of responsibility because you're a part of a giant system and hey, I'm just an accountant. I go to work and I do my thing for Exxon or mobile or whatever it is. Yeah. Well, let's say for however messy all of this has become in the US, at least you have had some sort of attempt to strip out the very stuff that that guy was talking about, the fact that the civil service is all one way, the fact that the machinery of government, that was the plan, right? So the machinery of government works in a certain way. So there's no democratic means of getting rid of it. There's no way to change it. Well, I think the counter to that is the education that the internet provides and that's where they didn't anticipate in 1984. So the education that the internet provides is untethered. But then the internet tells us that Christopher Nolan just made a film with a black hell and of Troy. Right. And he hasn't. It produces all sorts of unsavory things too. But it also allows the distribution of information that would be impossible through normal means. Absolutely. So there are, as he said, in control of major media, which they were in control of universities, which they are. And then it goes on to be the only way people get information. Now your information is very heavily filtered and then all that stuff works. But that's why the technocrats in the EU, why ideologues generally are against internet or they want to censor it. That's why Macron is trying to stop X and France. Did you hear him or whoever is trying to stop it? So the EU, the head of the EU commission is Ursula von der Leyen. Did you hear her name by the way? Well, yeah, it's a sexy name, right? She's unelected. The European commission is an unelected body that sets the legislative agenda of all these European countries. Absolutely crazy. You can't vote them out. She did a speech last May where she said, and I'm not joking about this, she said that misinformation was like a virus and you need to un-oculate yourself against the virus. And the phrase she used is not debunking, pre-bunking. So pre-bunking is her idea of what you do with misinformation. What she means is censorship. Pre-bunking is the most sinister. It's crazy. Chill it. Like if you were to say, I'm going to come up with the most Orwellian, dark-lord kind of siss. Pre-bunking. Pre-bunking. Yeah, that's like fucking minority report, right? I don't know what the, because I know that there's this free speech debate opening up between the US and Europe, generally. You know when JD Vance came over to Munich and gave that talk to all the European leaders and said, you've got to stop censoring your people. You've got to stop running away from voters and they were shocked and they were horrified, but he was dead right. He's dead right. And you know what? People on the left should admit that he's dead right as well. But there's something about Europe, right? There's something about, like I think over here, coming over here, I get the sense that even if most left-leaning people, as well as right-leaning people, do value free speech as a kind of shared value. And in Europe, it's not that. There's a real sense of, we can't trust the masses. Because I know that the EU is seen as this big lefty thing, which absolutely is not. The EU is a body that wants to censor its citizens. It's a body that tells people you can have a referendum, but if you get it wrong, we're going to make you vote again. It's not a democratic organisation. So no wonder Vance is sort of, and Trump is at loggerheads with this body because you've got these, we in the UK have an authoritarian leader, Kierstrand, the Prime Minister. He couldn't be further away from the American ideal of free speech. He introduced this online safety bill, which is basically, this is why a lot of tweets in the UK, if you go to the UK now, a lot of the tweets will come up and say, this is potentially harmful content, so we're screening it out. He, you know, they're trying to get rid of juries for certain trials. They did get rid of juries. They already did. And that's particularly dangerous because some of those cases are for speech crime, right? So I'll give you an example.
There was a Royal Marine called Jamie Michael, who had made a video just saying, "We need to peacefully protest against the migration issue." They took him to court for stirring up racial hatred, but the jury is what let him off. It was the jury that saved him. In this new system, there wouldn't be a jury there, and he would be in prison. - Yeah. - And most certainly would be in prison. - So I kind of feel like, and we've got here, Stamen Aferin, of the three years, every decision that he makes is about not trusting the public, censoring what they think. If he could get rid of X, he absolutely would. - Is it possible that someone sensible could win in three years, or is the system so deeply entwined in the ideology of the English people that it's just stuck? - This is what I think about that. 'Cause I look at America, and I think, in a way you had your culture war election, because of Trump, right? - Yeah. - You know, I mean, a lot of people say the culture war doesn't matter. Of course it does. - Of course it does. - I mean, did you see about that, the advert that the GOP put out, you know, commoner Harris' for they then, Trump is for you, that was the slogan. It was about the Democrats wanting to fund transgender surgery for prisoners. And Donald Trump's team had this advert, commoner Harris for they then, Donald Trump is for you. That actuated a 2.7 shift in favor of Donald Trump among everyone who saw it. It was a major success. That just shows that these issues, these cultural issues, people do care, and people do vote. But you had a way in America to vote that stuff out through Trump, right? - We've never had that. We've had-- - But they barely had a way. Like if they had more time, they wouldn't have. - You mean, if the Democrats had come-- - Yeah, absolutely. - If the Democrats won this time, and then they tried to do it again in 2028, Elon was really adamant about that during the last election. Like this might be the last real election we have, if you don't stop this now, because they have an open border, and in the last four years, they've pulled 10, at least, 10 million people into this country. And they've changed the electoral map. And then on top of that, there was both Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, openly talking about letting these people vote, openly talking about giving these people a path to citizenship, and they had already put them on Medicaid, they had put them on Social Security, they were giving them EBT cards, they were housing them at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City, they were giving them money and helping them get to these states. They were flying them through into America and putting them in these places because they were trying to get voters. - So another four years. - Another four years, they might have had it completely locked up. - You know, that's what the Democrats that have said about the Republicans. I mean, Oprah Winfrey was saying this might be the last election we have. - That's so true. - If we don't vote for coming out of this. - Oprah Winfrey had Donald Trump on her show years ago. - Other friends are asking him to be president. - Yeah, they were mates. - Yeah. - Oh yeah. - Look, they all get captured. They all get captured by group thinking ideology and they all get captured by money and protecting it and who's gonna protect them. - But we don't have that safety valve in the UK. So like I say, you were able to, for all the imperfections, you were able to vote in an administration that was actually going to rip out that whatever you call it. - It showed this system is better. It showed the system is better, even though the system was trying to get rigged, enough people revolted against it. - Yes. - But look at the ideas that you're attaching to this administration. Like look, the ice stuff is terrific. The people getting shot, it's terrific. We all agree to that. There's a lot of the authoritarian aspects that's terrific. But what they've stopped is all of this illegal immigration. They've stopped all the illegal immigration. Legal immigration is still available. And then what they've also done is investigate literally billions of dollars in fraud and they're uncovering it over and over and over and over. So there was obviously crime that was going on that was not being addressed by the previous party. And this is one of the reasons why they didn't want the Republicans getting in in the first place. So they still have to label them in the most horrific ways possible, accentuate all the negative aspects of what's going on with the ice stuff. But not talk at all about the economy taking an uptick, not talk at all about GDP, not talk at all about tariffs being effective, not talk at all about any of the positive things. Stopping wars, he stopped wars in multiple different countries, stop conflicts, no one's talking at all in an objective sense. It's this is a Nazi party, these are fascists. We have to have no kings, stop the fascists. So these narratives are just being pushed out there constantly by the media. All the while these politicians are absolutely terrified that these investigations are going to start moving into their states and uncovering more and more and more fraud, which they're going to. But I mean, I know you say it's so reckless, though, I think as well, for the Democrats to, like you say, paint ice as Nazis. Talk about that this is the equivalent of the Gestapo. I think someone used that phrase. I mean, what you're saying about the shootings, obviously, we all agree it's absolutely horrific. Any kind of situation where the police inflict that kind of violence on someone needs to be thoroughly investigating and looked into an all the rest of it. But I'm concerned about the politicians as I know go there, get in the way of federal agents while they're enforcing the law. They're just trying to be popular. But they're putting people's lives at risk, aren't they? But it's again that that chess move again, giving up the rook or attacking a rook and giving up your queen because of it. Because you just want the current-- Well, it's working. And so far as the public is turning against Trump because of what's happening with ICE. I mean, that's-- There's certainly a lot of that. There's certainly a lot of that. The narrative is out there. But it's dependent upon how far it goes. They've got to de-asculate this violence. They've got to make sure that that-- but you also need supportive local police. You can't have people attack the hotels where these ICE people are staying and have no support whatsoever by the police. That's crazy. They're being told to stand down. So this is messy stuff. But look how hard-- well, I mean, you talk about how Trump has come in on these stripped away all this stuff and this fraud and-- but that was-- he didn't do it in the first term. It's only when he got to the second term and it was planned. And he had Doge set up and he had Musk in place. And all of this deep state stuff could be identified and stripped out and worked out. Well, how long had a deep state people in his cabinet the first term didn't know? So he couldn't work against it. But we can't-- in the UK, just to sort of explain where I think we are there, is we can't do that. Because we have-- the two major parties are both ideologically inlockstep effectively. Right? So I mean, most of the woke stuff was pushed through the conservative party. They were in power for 13 years. They're ostensibly-- Right, pushed through the woke stuff. They pushed through the genders, self-recognition stuff. Why do you think the conservatives did that? So the-- why is a good question? So the Prime Minister Theresa May, conservative Prime Minister at the time, she said in her autobiography, I'm woke and proud. You know, she said, like, she-- can you imagine Trump saying that? It's the equivalent. It's the equivalent. So I think it's because something about this ideology infected every side of the political law, particularly in the UK. What might happen now in the UK is reform are probably going to win the next election. That's in three years' time. And that's so seismic, because it will blow apart this two-party system that we've got. That probably couldn't happen in America, right? You probably couldn't get it. You have a third party that can win. We have a third party that can win. That's new. Really? And that's-- we haven't had that for a long, long, long time. But you said-- What is the possibility that it could win? You think it's 50, 50? Look at it this way. We've been sort of varying massively from-- the conservatives under Boris Johnson won this mad majority, like A.T.C. majority. And they could do whatever they want, and they squandered it. People were so resentful of what happened with Johnson, who, by the way, let in so more migration than illegal migration than we've ever had, right? Did he do that for cheap labor? Probably. I mean, I think that's certainly part of it. In the streets. Certainly, that's part of it. And that's a problem that conservatives don't want to admit that they were-- I had a conversation with a very prominent politician, who explained to me that he had a conversation with a guy who was a CEO of a corporation that didn't want to stop the flow of illegal immigration because he wanted cheap labor. And he was flabbergasted. He was like, I can't fucking believe this guy's saying this out loud. It's worse with Johnson, because in their manifesto, they pledged not to do it. So they had to promise-- they call it the Boris wave. So that's how bad it was. And then you have Starma and the Labour Party, who were just as bad if not worse. And we have a situation where it's unmanageable now and reform this third party, Nigel Farage's party, is saying, no, we're actually going to tackle this. And of course, ultimately, what happens is the public-- they reach a tipping point. And they say, by the way, Starma is the least popular prime minister on any opinion poll ever in the history of records. That's-- he's gone from a massive majority to nothing because he's been so useless on all of this stuff, because he's been so captured by the ideology, because he doesn't care about migration, because he said that anyone who was concerned about the grooming gang scandal was jumping on a bandwagon of the far right. That's what he said. So all of this has happened, but you can't blame the left. It's the left and the right. It's both of them. It's why they call it the uni party. It's the same thing. So you need something else to come along and-- Explode it. What do you think the possibility of Farage winning? Pretty high. Right. So if it were today, he'd win. If he didn't get whacked between now and then-- Do you guys whack people over there very often? Less than here. I think that's more-- it's more an American thing. It's a lot easier. A lot more guns over here. There's a lot more guns. So I think it's cross obviously that won't happen. But it looks like-- if it was today, he'd win. There's an overtake of a couple-- I mean, he could mess things up. Something crazy could happen. You caught with a live boy or a dead girl. Something like that. But I think with Starma, people are just sick of it. He has continually backtracked on all these promises. He's not interested. He just. dismisses people's concerns about immigration. He dismisses people concerned about the mass rape of children in the grooming gang scandal that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do an inquiry about that. They didn't want to do it. And because they're so terrified of being called racist, ultimately, so they let this thing slide. So I think people are just sick of it. I think people have reached the point where even I think people who don't like Nigel Farage will hold their nose and vote for a third party to explode the system. And maybe we might be able to reset after that. Maybe something could happen. One of the things that's interesting in America is a lot of young people are becoming conservative. That is interesting. It's interesting because I think that's a force of the internet. And being a conservative more today is more like being a rebel. It's like bucking this system. Whereas it used to be that if you were a rebel, you were left-wing. You were like, you're a hippie. And that's not really the case anymore because the system that has power is a system that is pushing this one very particular ideology that also demonizes young males. Hugely. But that's also why I don't think it's about left and right anymore. I think one of the things about the culture was it kind of killed off left and right. Like I say in the UK, we couldn't vote this out. We had a right-wing party. It didn't make a difference. The left-wing party makes it worse. We had a prime minister, you know, Kirsta Amar on radio saying that 99.9% of men, women, don't have a penis, which means that there are 35,000 female penises out there. It's quite a lot if you can picture that image. You know, so that's our prime minister saying this phrase, our deputy prime minister said on TV that you could grow a cervix if you wanted. So that's David Lamy. That sounds like I'm making that up. He said that. You can check that. He said you could grow a cervix. So these are the kind of people who are in charge now who are, it's just all about their fake, you know, fake ideology that's all it is. Which is why internet censorship is so much more prominent there. That's what's going to happen. No, that's why they're going to absolutely try to do that. Yeah, exactly. Well, they are doing it. Yeah. Just self-sensorship by arresting people. There's a lot of censorship involved and scare. Yeah. And just in the fear of being arrested. But the problem for reform will be, do they have the guts to do what Trump did? Do they have the guts to come in and say, look, we need to scrap the civil service. One that you can't scrap the civil service, but you need to sort of bleed it dry. You need to give it a good rinse, right? You need to get rid of the, because there have been whistleblowers in the UK civil service who have said, we're not going to do what the elected politicians say. If they come in and say there's an immigration problem, we're just going to stime you that. We're not going to do what they want. We've got a police who are routinely investigating people for their opinions. Just to put that into context, by the way, if we're talking about this deep state that we've got to clean out, our police force is trained by a body called the College of Police. They have been telling police for years. It's your job to arrest people for what they think and what they say. And the high court told them, you've got to stop this. You've got to stop recording non-crime hate incidents. Two home secretaries said to them, you've got to stop recording non-crime hate incidents. They ignored the courts. They ignored the government. And that's the power of an ideologically captured quango. That's the problem. That's the problem. So even when you vote for a party that's going to strip this stuff out, you still have to do the actual hard work of stripping out. I would abolish the College of Police. Do people know about non-crime hate incidents? Do they know that this is a thing in America? Do they know that that's what we do? I mean, people are just aware that there's a lot of arrest because of social media posts. We don't pay nearly as much attention to the UK as the UK pays attention to American politics. Right. Now, that's fair enough. Because we're a small line and that's fair enough. But what I would say is that it's worse than people think. And so far as the 12,000 arrested year, that's horrific. But with the police routinely checking up on you if you commit non-crime, that's sort of even worse, isn't it? Yes. The Scottish police have a database of jokes that they've seen online that they think problematic and they've kept this. The Scottish police introduced a hate crime bill two years ago now, which can prosecute you for things you say in your own house. There's a section in that bill on the public performance of a play. So if a play is offensive, they can arrest you. If you're the director or an actor involved in the play and it's considered offensive, they can arrest you. They set up, when they implemented that hate crime bill, they set up hate crime reporting centres. So if you felt offended, you could get, and they converted like, there was a sex shop, I think, there was a mushroom farm, you could go and report hate to the police as and when it occurs. And this is coming from the police force. The people who are supposed to sustain authority and prevent criminality. When you've seen the viral videos, the police come knocking on people's doors saying, you said this thing online. That's insane. So I think it's worse than just the arrest. I think it's a rotten system that is being trained by activists in the college of policing that no government will deal with. They don't get rid of these activists. They let the actor and the activists, when they're told to stop it, they carry on anyway. And in the entire culture, has to shift. That's what I mean. Yeah. A politician to go in and say, scrap the college police in, strip out all the activists within the NHS, within the army, within the police, within the Crown Prosecution Service. It also has to get so bad that people realise how bad it is and they need radical change. But I think the Grimming Gangs did that. Yeah. I think the fact that we effectively sacrificed thousands of kids on the altar of ideology, the fact that we said, you know, there were politicians, counsellors, doctors, social workers saying, we don't want to be called racist. So we're going to ignore the sexual assault of children on a mass scale. And that was not really thoroughly covered here in America in these dream news. I think because Elon. No, online it was, but not in mainstream news. So do people not generally know about that? They know about it now. Right. But it wasn't something that you would see every night on CNN. Really? Yeah, it's a huge story. But that power of being called racist became so intense. I mean, even, you know that horrible bombing at the Manchester Arena at the Ariana Grande concert in the subsequent report of what went wrong, one of the security guards said he saw the perpetrator with the Rucksack and he didn't approach him or apprehend him because he was afraid of being called racist. That was the reason. And as a result of that, two dozen children lost their lives. Oh, my God. The power of smearing someone as racist is so potent, which is why I think here in America, the word fascist, the word Nazi gets thrown around so much because they know if someone is so branded, you disobeyed yourself from having to engage with their ideas. They become this kind of monster that you don't have to even think about or worry about. And we're just. I think we're just getting over that in the UK now where the accusation of racism no longer really sticks. I think people think it doesn't mean anything anymore. And you know, they've tried with reform. They've tried saying that reform is a racist party. It's a far right party. No one's buying it anymore. And I think that's why hopefully something can change. I think the grooming gangs, I think the mass immigration to the extent where people are at risk. They just are unvetted people, many with criminal records. We don't want to go the way of Sweden. I mean, you know how bad Sweden's got. You know, Sweden used to be the most high trust society in Europe, low crime. They allowed mass immigration on the scale they couldn't possibly contain. I think it's now 20% of Sweden's population are now foreign-born. And predominantly they live in ghettos where crime is rife. They didn't integrate. There was no expectation they should integrate. And as a result of that, it's gone from being one of the safest countries in Europe to being the country that has most gun and bomb attacks of any country not at war except for Mexico. And that's happened in the space of 10 years. All right. It's an absolute. I remember when it was going on, a Swedish stand-up friend of mine, to be his person. He said, "There's grenades going off in Stockholm. There's gunfire on my street." And the politicians are doing nothing about it. They're saying this doesn't matter. I was in Sweden a couple of years ago. I was talking to a bunch of. And you know what Swedes like? They're very middle-class, very. Well, I thought all of them were very liberal, very. They're not a racist shred in their body. And they all came back to the same story. They all wanted to discuss immigration. And they all come back to the same thing. One woman said to me, "I got this wrong. We got this wrong." Why do you think they did it? Good intentions, first and foremost. Really? Okay. Well, there's a. Really? You think it was just good intentions to let all those people in? Have you met Swedes? You know how? But I mean, come on. It's happening in America. It's happening in England. It's happening in the UK. Yes. It's happening in Ireland. It's just good intentions everywhere. Could it also be. Could it also be this delusion, this idea? What you would call, I suppose, a liberal universalism. This idea that everyone is basically the same. Everyone in every culture basically wants the same things. It explains the queers for Palestine phenomenon. You know, it doesn't matter when you go. No, no, no, no. The queers for Palestine phenomenon is explained by the internet. And people being stupid and being in a bubble where they never experience those folks. I don't think this is organized. I think it's organized. I think the more chaos there is, the more they can crack down on your rights. I know you think it's organized. I'm not convinced of that yet. I'm open to it. I just. I mean, at one point in time. It's fairly universal in Western society. But to interrupt a rule in them. In America as well. The last four years before Trump got into office, that's what they were doing here. It seems like a strategy. It doesn't seem as simple as just good intentions. I know. Well, and that does seem too simplistic. I absolutely agree with that. You create more chaos. The more chaos you have, the more laws you need. The more laws you need, the more control you have. But speaking to these people in Sweden, I mean, it was an event where we were talking
about a book I'd written. So it was all about these issues. And I was mingling and talking to them. And they all wanted to talk about it, but-- - But they're the citizens. - That's what I mean, though. - The people that implemented this law in the first place, that's where I'm cynical. I think the people that implemented those laws in the first place, they know what they're doing. - Yes, and, well, certainly they're aware of the risks. I mean, if you take what happened in Cologne, that New Year's Eve party, where I think over 800 women were sexually assaulted. And the media didn't report it. And the government wanted to sort of minimalize it and say that this wasn't real. - It's not even just the risks. It's the physical, actual, measurable consequences. - Yes, exactly. - And they're not course correcting. That, to me, leads me to think that they know what they're doing. - You don't think it could just be complete naivety this idea that-- - I think it's the best way to combat the internet. The best way to combat the internet is create a massive amount of chaos and then crack down on people's lives. - I suppose what worries me about it is, though, that the assumption that it's all sort of coordinated will take you down that route where you start thinking, as some friends of mine now think, the world is controlled by a group of Satanists who sit in a room and they choose the leaders. And they, do you know what I mean? - Well, I don't take it Satanist, but I think it's incredibly wealthy people. - But why would it be in their interest to destroy the economy that so sustains them? - Well, it depends on where they are and who they are. But George Soros clearly does that. And he's talked about it. He's talked about enjoying destroying democracies. - And enjoying destroying countries. He's kicked, he's not allowed to go into certain countries. He makes money doing it. - But he relies on those democratic societies. You know-- - Yeah, but they're still functional. He just profits off of it largely. - That's what I struggle with, though. Like, you know, someone who believes in, fundamentally the capitalist dream. - Can't get capitalist dream to be sub-- - You can, it's subject to manipulation. - Yeah. - And intelligent evil people, or at least amoral people. - But this doesn't answer why people do vote for end they do. I mean, they do vote for it because they've done a really good job of attaching it. And there's also this ideology thing. There's left and right. If you're left, you're blue, no matter who, blue to the grave, that's it. And if anybody that votes red is a dirty racist, fascist, and they think about it that way. And we really have no option for a centrist party in this country, which is where most people lie. Most people lie in the middle. Most people are very socially liberal. And most of the people that I know that even identifies conservative, they're very socially liberal. But they're financially much more aligned with conservative ideology. - Sure. Well, I think, I mean, I think ultimately, hopefully, that the brick wall of reality is what cures this. Like it's when-- - If we don't destroy society along the way, if we don't allow them to destroy society, we don't completely erode all of our rights along the way. - And as you said earlier, it's, you can get very close to that happening. - And rights in that lost are never regained. - Never. Look at Australia. They had one mass shooting. They took their guns in the 1990s. Then COVID came and they're like, "Get in the fucking camp." - Yeah, and they just-- - They've just introduced a new hate speech law off the back of the Bondi beach shooting. And of course, this, again, is really draconian. It goes way too far. In fact, I think the Australian hate speech law is basically saying, "If someone does something that wasn't intended to stir up hatred, but it could conceivably have stirred up hatred among a theoretical group or group of people, then it's a crime and you can get five years in prison." - Sure, imagine blaming that on hate speech instead of blaming it on just letting wild, violent criminals emigrate into your country. - Right, I mean, that's amazing. - Imagine. - Yeah. - Amazing gaslighting. - We had it. - But not saying, "Hey, maybe we should stop letting violent criminals enter into our country illegally and live here." No, no, no. What we should start doing is taking people that have done no crime whatsoever and create their dissent, create a crime based on their dissent. - I totally agree. We had it in the UK. We had a politician horrible story, guy called David Amos. He was stabbed to death by an Islamist at his surgery. You know, politicians, we call them surgeries where you meet face to face your constituents. They come and you talk about the local issues. I don't think they do that in America. He stabbed him to death. And then there was this parliamentary debate about, how can we crack down on free speech online? - Right. - No, the problem with the knife wielding maniac. The problem was, - Gaslighting. - Unchecked Islamism. - But it really is what Bezmanov was saying. - Yeah, it's that thing of not addressing the, like after the, - But not seeing the truth. - Not seeing the truth, right? - Because you've been captured. - But I think, - But I think what's better now is that people can see through that. So like when, when Kirstama, after that horrible, I mentioned it earlier, the girls who were killed in the dance class by the guy who was a child of immigrants. He, that his response to that was, okay, let's not, you know, deal with the fact that we've got radicalized individuals within our community, young people. He said, let's ban buying knives off Amazon. Because the guy got the knife from Amazon, right? You can also get them in shops here. You can walk in and get a shop. - Most people have a kitchen over at home. It's like one of the most- - That's not the common weapons. - Andy ban ninja swords around the same time, which was a big blow to the ninja community, but I kind of, so great, like that's the thing you go for. You choose the thing that isn't. - But this is the idea of allowing this kind of chaos and having this be a coordinated plan, right? The more chaos you have, the more you gaslight people, the more people are attached to an ideology, the more you can keep restricting their rights, further and further and further until they're more and more frustrated and to a lot of them just give up. - But we are at a position now where people are seeing through it all the time. In the UK now, like no matter how much they smear, reform is far right, the polls just keep going up and up and up for that. - Right, but it's because of the internet, because you have at least some dissenting voices. - We have that. And also, the palpable absurdities of what the politicians are trying to tell you is real is as rich as such while they're trying to crack down, pub talk. - Oh, and by the way, the Labour Party has canceled a number of local elections 'cause they know they're gonna lose them. They've actually canceled them. They've canceled them. Well, they've said they've postponed them while they're reforming the system. - Oh. - Right, but they're really scared. - But it's stuff like that where - Get rid of the juries, cancel elections, and they're the good guys. - And at that point, it doesn't matter how much you'll propaganda, or how much you think your propaganda is gonna work. The public are gonna see through that, and they say, "Hang on a minute." You're saying that I can't vote. You're saying if I end up in court, I may not have a jury. You're saying I can't browse through Twitter. You're saying I can't say the wrong thing online. Enough is enough. And I think they reach a point where they say, and some of the stories are so egregious. Like for instance, the guy, have you heard of a guy called Hammett Kossken? This is, I think he's our meanian guy who burned a copy of his caran outside the Turkish embassy, right? The idea of this was a protest against the Turkish government because he perceives Erdogan's government as a, I suppose, supporting Islamism and the rise of Islamism. So he protests outside the thing, burns the caran, two people attack him, one with a knife, the other, some delivery driver starts kicking him. He gets prosecuted in the court of law for inciting the violence, and the judge actually says, the fact that you were attacked is proof that you were inciting violence, right? It took the free speech union in the UK to have that overturn, to fight on his behalf, to say, that's a peaceful protest. It was his copy of his book. We don't have blasphemy laws in the UK. But now the CPS, the Crown Prosecution Service, is trying to overturn that because they want to see this guy go down. And that is what we're talking about. We've got bodies like the Crown Prosecution Service saying, no, we want an Islamic blasphemy code in the UK. The Labour Party wants an official definition of Islamophobia. So you can't criticize, you can't peacefully protest. You can't burn a book that you bought. And all of that, and we're seeing this happen in front of us. And people are just saying, look, we believe in plurality, we believe in freedom of religion. You should be able to, we're not, we've got nothing against Muslim people. What we are objecting to is the idea that we shouldn't be able to ridicule your religion or mock your religion or protest against your religion. And you're going to pathologize it by saying, we've got a sickness, we're Islamophobic. I think people, I think that case, the fact that you can't burn, I mean, some kid in a school in Wakefield accidentally scuffed a copy of his Quran, and he got hit with a non-crime hate incident. And there was a big issue, and the police got involved. You know, we have to hold fast to this idea, though. No, no idea. No idea doesn't get criticised. No, like, I, and so I just think the more stories like that happen, maybe I'm naive, but I think the British public's patience is kind of at the very end. I hope so. I hope it's not too late. I really do. But in the meantime, your book, The End of Woke, it's available. Did you do the audio version of it? I did. It took me ages. Yeah, I'm glad you did it, go. Yeah, I'm sure it is, but it's always so much better when it's in this. It's fun, isn't it? It's very, very, somewhat cute. Thank you, Andrew. Really appreciate it. And I hope you guys figure it out over there, but in the meantime, glad you're here. Well, I got away. I'm glad. I'm glad. But I mean, that's, it shouldn't be that everybody has to escape. That's crazy. No, I know. - I'm nuts and then what's gonna be left? Like only people that are submitting and then the chaos of what you've loud in. - Right. - The fucking nuts. - Exactly, so you gotta make sure that America doesn't go to pop 'cause I need this place to work. - Yeah, I need it to work too, part of my business model. All right, thank you, bye everybody. (upbeat music) [BLANK_AUDIO]
Podcast Summary
Key Points:
The discussion critiques "woke" culture as an authoritarian impulse disguised as progressive inclusivity, arguing it suppresses free speech and enforces conformity through fear.
The UK is highlighted as having stringent hate speech laws leading to arrests for social media posts deemed "grossly offensive," contrasting with U.S. First Amendment protections like the Brandenburg test for incitement.
Examples include arrests for memes and tweets, illustrating concerns over criminalizing speech and the erosion of public discourse in the UK compared to more robust free speech traditions in America.
Summary:
The conversation centers on the rise and impact of "woke" culture, framed as a modern authoritarian movement that uses language of inclusivity and kindness to justify censorship and punitive measures against dissent. The speakers argue that this has led to a suppression of free speech, particularly in the UK, where hate speech laws have resulted in thousands of arrests for social media content considered offensive, such as memes or tweets. They contrast this with the United States, where the First Amendment and legal standards like the Brandenburg test provide stronger protections for speech, requiring imminent incitement to violence for prosecution.
Examples cited include arrests for retweeting a meme comparing pride flags to a swastika and a woman imprisoned for a deleted tweet during riots. The dialogue warns against the dangers of equating speech with violence and emphasizes vigilance to preserve free expression, noting that authoritarian tendencies can emerge from any political direction.
FAQs
The book argues that 'woke' culture represents an authoritarian impulse that went too far, and society is now entering a counter-revolutionary phase where such authoritarianism could shift to other political sides.
It describes how activists use positive-sounding terms like 'equity' or 'gender-affirming care' to mean the opposite, such as enforcing unequal treatment or promoting pseudo-scientific beliefs, thereby manipulating decent intentions.
The US has the First Amendment and the Brandenburg test, which requires intent, likelihood, and imminence of violence for speech restrictions. The UK lacks such protections, allowing arrests for merely 'grossly offensive' speech.
A woman named Lucy Connolly was sentenced to 31 months in prison for a quickly deleted tweet expressing anger about asylum seeker hotels, despite no evidence it incited imminent violence.
It suggests authoritarianism often sneaks in disguised as inclusivity or kindness, exploiting people's desire to be fair, and emerges when societies fail to remain vigilant against such impulses.
The 'banter ban' refers to a proposed UK law that would require employers in places like pubs to protect staff from overheard offensive speech, potentially criminalizing casual conversations.
Chat with AI
Loading...
Pro features
Go deeper with this episode
Unlock creator-grade tools that turn any transcript into show notes and subtitle files.
PodcastTranscript AI